TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Tribunal is recalled for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating the Ground of appeal No. 3 after considering the aforesaid two judicial pronouncements viz. (i) The CIT Vs. M/s Bajaj India Ltd. [ 2009 (4) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ;and (ii) Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT [ 2006 (9) TMI 226 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B] . The miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed and, the registry is directed to re-fix the matter in terms of our aforesaid observations. - M.A. No. 104/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.679/Mum/2011) - - - Dated:- 3-7-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Applicant : Ms. Vasa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of the assessee paper book (for short APB ) at Page No. 241-271. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R, that in the course of the hearing of the appeal specific reliance was placed upon two of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements viz. (i) The CIT Vs. M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (ITA No. 198 of 2009, dated 15.04.2009) (Bom); and (ii) Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT (2008) 111 ITD 124 (Hyd). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the aforesaid judicial pronouncements constituted a mistake apparent from record, which had thus rendered the order amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Act. 3. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not granting deduction of an amount of ₹ 111,810,595/- in respect of prior period adjustments (net) while computing the book profits under Sec.115JB of the Act. 5. As regards the claim of the ld. A.R that reliance was also placed on the aforementioned remaining judicial pronouncements viz. (i) CIT Vs. Khaitan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. (2019) 221 CTR (Del) 501; (ii) Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2012) 349 ITR 58 (Mad); and (v) DCIT (Assessment) Vs. Farmson Pharmaceuticals Guj. Ltd. (2012) (347 ITR 394) (Guj), we find that though the copies o the said respective orders were f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
