TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 10(34) - Tribunal has accepted the method of calculation put forth by assessee, and observed that the method adopted in the AY in issue, was also followed, as well as accepted by the appellant/revenue, in other assessment years - HELD THAT:- Tribunal invoked the rule of consistency as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Radha Soami Satsang v Commissioner of Income Tax [ 1991 (11) TMI 2 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eholdings Ltd. [ 2018 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as according to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. - ITA 108/2023 & CM APPL. 8819/2023 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2023 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the Tribunal ] dated 03.04.2019 concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 7. The short point which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether or not the calculation of disallowable expenses made by the respondent/assessee, on its own, under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short Act ] was correct. 8. To be noted, the respondent/asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. 12. The Tribunal has accepted the method of calculation put forth by the respondent/assessee, and in this behalf, has observed that the method adopted in the AY in issue, was also followed, as well as accepted by the appellant/revenue, in other assessment years. 12.1 Observations in this behalf are recorded in paragraph 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order. 12.2 The Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. The Tribunal held that the said rule was applicable only from AY 2008-09. 16.1 In this context, Mr Zoheb Hossain, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, does not dispute this aspect of the matter, in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253. 17. Given the aforesaid position, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
