9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) No.1020 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2009 - MR. K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN And MR. M.M. SUNDRESH JJ.] For appellant : Mr. K. Subramanian Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The revenue is on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench, Chennai dated 11.2.2009 passed in ITA.No.716/Mds/2008 relating to the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The Statement of facts culled out from the memorandum of grounds are as follows:- The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile tyres, tubes, flaps and other rubber products, paints and trading in sports goods, machinery and spares. For the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (K.Raviraja Pandian,J) is a party. In the said decision, the question of law has already been decided against the Revenue by observing as follows:- " 4. The counsel on either side submits that the issue has to be decided in favour of the assessee, as this Court already, by following the decision of [2007] 292 ITR 1 (SC) (Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mandideep Engineering and Packaging Industries (P) Ltd.,) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in T.C.No.344 of 2004, (since reported as Deputy CIT v. Chola Textiles P. Ltd.[2008] 304 ITR 256 (Mad)wherein this Court has held as follows:- " 5. It is submitted across the bar by the learned counsel appearing for either side that the very issue has been considered and held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in (2001) 248 ITR 29 (Bom); CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P.Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT v. Amod Stamping (2005) 274 ITR 176 (Guj); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons (2004) 271 ITR 444 (Raj); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar (2005) 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v. S.B.Oil Industries P. Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 495 (P H); CIT v. SKG Engineering P.Ltd. (2005) 119 DLT 673 = (2006) 285 ITR 423 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. (2006) 200 CTR 305 (All) Since the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have been dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
