9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther amounts receivable from the Government and, hence, the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the levy of additional tax under section143(1A) of the Act was not warranted. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but did not succeed. Tribunal passed the order in favour of assessee. Held that- On the basis of the decision of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v ITO where in it is held that electricity duty on sale of electricity has to be considered as an inadmissible item under section 43B of the Act, thus it is in favour of revenue and against the assessee. - 155 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2008 - D. A. MEHTA and Z. K. SAIYED JJ. B. B. Naik for the Commissioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricity duty payable had been adjusted against other amounts receivable from the Government and, hence, the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the levy of additional tax under section143(1A) of the Act was not warranted. The Assessing Officer negatived the claim made by the assessee holding that there was no proof of such adjustment having been made within the stipulated period. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but did not succeed. 3. In second appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the issue was squarely concluded in favour of the assessee by virtue of the Tribunal's order dated July 29, 1988, rendered in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling of the return. For this purpose, attention was invited to the fact that the decision of the Tri bunal was dated July 29, 1988, whereas the return of income had been filed on December 31, 1990. It was also submitted that in any view of the matter, the issue was debatable and section 143(1) (a) of the Act would not be attracted and no adjustment was permissible. 6. In rejoinder, Shri Naik contended that the issue before the apex court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 48 pertained to amendment of the law which was made retrospectively applica ble, but in a case where the jurisdictional High Court had pronounced upon law which was already existing the issue would stand on a different footing and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
