9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee's appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. - IT Appeal No. 7210 (Mum.) of 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2012 - DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, B. RAMAKOTAIAH, JJ. Arvind Sonde for the Appellant. Ajay Kumar Jain for the Respondent. ORDER Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Judicial Member This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dated 7.10.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading chemicals, filed return declaring total income of ₹ 19,46,00,340/-. Subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2011] 12 taxmann.com 309/201 taxmann 237 and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Lionbridge Technologies ( P. ) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 40 (URO)/20 taxmann.com 185 (Mum.) for the proposition that on the similar facts and circumstances of the case, following the judgment in the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. ( supra ), the Tribunal has set aside the matter to the authorities below to pass fresh assessment order in conformity with the provisions of the Act and also in view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand ( supra ). He, therefore, submits that following the same view, the order passed by the AO be set aside to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew observations of Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand ( supra ). 8. Applying the above observations to the facts of the present case, we observe that the said DRP is consisting of members S/Shri P. Raghu, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Mumbai, L.N. Pant, Director of Income Tax (Intl. Taxn), Mumbai and Ms. Anuradha Bhatia, Director of Income Tax Transfer Pricing-I, Mumbai. As per statement showing jurisdiction of CIT, DIT and DRP on various dates we observe that there is no dispute that Shri P. Raghu, Commissioner of Income Tax- I, Mumbai who is one of the Members of DRP was the DIT (TP- I)/ jurisdictional Commissioner of the assessee when the draft assessment order was passed. Therefore, we find merit in the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that the observations of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. ( supra ) in paragraph 37 of the judgement ( supra ) as reproduced hereinabove are binding on the Tribunal. Besides this, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. ( supra ) has also followed the same observations. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the plea of the ld. DR that the said observations are not binding on this Tribunal, are devoid of any merit and accordingly the same are rejected. 11. Respectfully following the above decisions and keeping in view the rule of consistency and also in the interests of justice we without go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
