9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhate I/b PDS Legal For the Respondent : Mr. Anil C. Singh, ASG a/w Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Aditya Thakkar and Ms. Geetika Gandhi ORDER P.C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 27th March, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). This appeal relates to Assessment Year 201112. 2. The appellant urges only the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India would not extend to the appellant. It placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation Vs. ITO, 521 ITR 524 to come to the aforesaid conclusion. (b) Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal challenges the above finding / conclusion of the Tribunal as being contrary to the decision of its coordinate bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r CIDCO was agent of the Government and protected by Article 289 of the Constitution of India and was not exigible to income tax.". (d) We agree with Mr. Singh, learned ASG that this issue is no longer res integra as it stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Aditya Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Union of India, 2006 (5) SCC 100 wherein an identical / similar entity t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this appeal. (e) Therefore, in face of the Supreme Court decision in Aditya Industrial Area Development Authority (supra) which concludes the issue in the present facts, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law at question no.(ii) above. 5. Registry is directed to commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
