9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 4485 of 2007. 2. Assessee-respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee' filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1992-93 declaring income of Rs. 4,30,06,580 by showing its business as investment and finance, which was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 18th Jan., 1996 on the same income. Along with the return the assessee claimed refund amounting to Rs. 29,16,660 on the basis of credit of deemed TDS on dividend received from a Malaysian company i.e. Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD, Malaysia. The AO raised a demand of Rs. 1,07,370 after rejecting the credit claimed by the assessee on the basis of deemed credit on d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or before the CIT(A) but was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and that too in an appeal filed by the Department? 4. Having dismissed the cross objection filed by the assessee, whether the Tribunal was justified in then proceeding to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merits in their favour." 5. On question No. 1. the High Court, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm & Ors. (1994) 120 CTR (Mad) 427 : (1994) 208 ITR 400 (Mad) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Dead) Through LRs (2004) 189 CTR (SC) 193 : (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC), held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that dividend income derived by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras High Court in CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm & Ors. and judgment of this Court in CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Dead) Through LRs and we are satisfied that the point involved in these appeals stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm & Ors. which was duly affirmed by this Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Dead) Through LRs. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the review petition filed against the decision of this Court in CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Dead) Through LRs was also dismissed on 1st Nov., 2007. 9. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
