9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the directions issued by it to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were binding upon him even though these were contrary to the available decision of the jurisdictional High Court under which both the appellate authorities were functioning ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it gave a direction to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to allow the claim of the assessee. The Department chose to file a reference application seeking reference of questions of law arising out of the said order dated April 10, 1984, but no reference was sought with regard to the allowing of the claim under section 35B The application under section 256(1) followed by an application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking reference of the question regarding deduction under section 35B in relation to the outward freight. It has been rightly contended by learned counsel for the assessee that it is not open to the Department to raise this contention now. The question whether weighted deduction on outward freight was allowable or not was decided by the Tribunal on April 10, 1984, in the first order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril 10, 1984, in our opinion, no question of law arises. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of April 10, 1984, is a nullity because it directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to follow the Bombay High Court and not the Delhi High Court. In our opinion the order of the Tribunal in this regard may be wrong but it is not correct to contend that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
