TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d gains of business of the assessee and ninety per cent of this income also would have to be deducted under Expln. (baa) to s. 80HHHC of the Act. In this case, this Court was not deciding the issue whether ninety per cent deduction is to be made from the gross or net income of any of the receipts mentioned in cl. (1) of the Expln. (baa). - Decided in favour of the assessee - Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1037 to 1040 and 1197 to 1199 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2018 - Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan JJ. For the Appellant (in all cases) : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel and M/s.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel For the For Respondent (in all cases) : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar COMMON JUDGMENT T. S. SIVAG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds raised for the reason that it has already quashed the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, following which the assessment impugned was made, when the order of the Tribunal quashing the 263 order has been appealed against before this Court? 4.The Commissioner exercised powers under Section 263 of the Act to revise the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer dated 27.03.2000 and 10.05.2000 for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 respectively. 5.In order to invoke power under Section 263 of the Act, twin conditions are required to be satisfied, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). Similar i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed netting of interest to the assessee. In the order passed by the Commissioner, it has been pointed out that on the date when the Assessing Officer took a decision, for the assessment years in question by passing the assessment orders dated 27.03.2000 and 10.05.2000, there was a judgment of the Jurisdictional Tribunal viz., Chennai Bench-B in the case of M.S.Subbiah Pillai Co. vs. CDIT [ITA Nos.2637 and 2638/Mds/1994; Dated 15.09.1995], which decision was subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in K.S.Subbiah Pillai Co. (India) (P) Ltd. (supra). Thus, though there were two views possible, the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal being the Jurisdictional Tribunal under whose jurisdiction, the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration in T.C.(A) Nos.1197 to 1199 of 2008, are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 12.So far as the substantial question of law framed for consideration in T.C.(A) Nos.1037 to 1040 of 2008 is concerned, in the light of the decision taken in T.C.(A) Nos.1197 to 1199 of 2008, these appeals also have to necessarily fail and they are dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue. 13.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the matter has to be remanded to the Assessing Officer to do the computation in terms of law laid down in ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. (supra). 14.The learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
