TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961 (for short "the Act"), is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed on November 13, 1998, in the assessee's appeal in respect of the assessment year 1993-94. Having heard Mr. R. D. Jolly, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. B. B. Ahuja, learned senior counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was unsuccessful. However, in the assessee's second appeal, following its earlier order for the assessment year, 1991-92, the Tribunal held that since the assessee did not carry on any "business" it was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act. Faced with the situation that the Revenue's applications under section 256(2) of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1991-92 and. 1992-93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 have been brought out by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order for the present assessment year. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any material change in the activities of the assessee as compared to the earlier years. The question of exemption to the assessee under section 11 of the Act having been examined in the earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is fact is disputed by Mr. Ahuja, learned senior counsel for the assessee. He has placed before us the details of deposit of PH/EMD forfeited amount in the public deposit account. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that it has been held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act, this issue would at best be of academic interest only. For the foregoing reasons the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
