9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated April 28, 2000, passed in I. T. A. Nos. 244, 245 and 266/Bang/1998 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. These appeals before the Tribunal were filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Along with this appeal, we have also heard the connected appeals, the details of which are given in the later part of the order and with this order they will also stand disposed of on the similar directions. 3. Even though four substantial questions of law have been formulated by learned counsel for the appellant, but after having heard and after perusing the record, we find that only the following substantial question of law wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his part of the order, by which the finding has been recorded on this issue, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8. Learned counsel for the parties informed us that for prior assessment years for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 and for subsequent assessment year for 1997-98, the Tribunal on the same facts and features of the case between the same parties, had taken just a contra view, i.e., to say in the orders passed for those assessment years, the view expressed by the Tribunal was that machining charges to the extent of 90 per cent. are to be excluded for the purposes of determining of "profits of the business" as defined in clause (baa) of the Explanation to sub-section (4B) of section 80HHC of the Act. 9. It is also perti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 12. In the light of the aforesaid contention and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside, which are also the subject-matter in the connected appeals, i.e., I. T. A. Nos. 462-465 of 2004 and I. T. A. No.1046 of 2006 and then to remand the matters to the Tribunal for de novo hearing on the merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides. 13. However, we may hasten to clarify that in any case we have not touched the merits of the matter and both parties would be at liberty to put forth all their contentions before the Tribunal, which we are sure, would be considered by it in accordance with law. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
