9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee as well as revenue are dismissed which is evident from para. 19 of the order. However, when the copy of the order was received, it is seen that Gr. 2 raised by assessee stands allowed. Since written order contrary to pronouncement made in the open Court is a mistake as held by Delhi High Court in ClT Vs G . Sagar Suri & Sons reported in 185 ITR 484, it is prayed that para. 12 of the order may be revised in tune with the finding pronounced in the Court since announcement made in the open court is the order of the Tribunal and the written order merely contains the reasons for it to come to the conclusion as held by the Delhi High Court. 2. Further the binding decisions of the Apex court in CIT Vs Calcutta stock Exchange Associat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT vs G. Sagar Suri and Sons, [1990] 185 ITR 484(Del). 5. The A.R submitted that the Tribunal, after considering the facts as well as the arguments and the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee reported in 131 TTJ 1, has arrived at a decision logically and allowed Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record in para 12 of the order of the Tribunal, which requires rectification. Para 19 of the order of the Tribunal contains a mistake which requires rectification. 6. We find that in para 12, the Tribunal has held as under: "12. The issue in the present appeal is that whether the amount received on account of time sharing units is to be taxed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The Tribunal recorded at para 19 as under: "In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed." 8. After perusing the materials available on record, we do not find any mistake in para 12 of the order of the Tribunal. However, we find that there was a typographical error at para 19 of the order of the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal has, after following the order of the Special Bench, has allowed Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee and also recorded so while disposing the ground of appeal of the assessee. However, at para 19, the Tribunal should have recorded that the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Due to a typographical error, it recorded that the appeal of the assessee is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing decisions are enclosed for kind ready reference. Annexure-1 41 ITR 495 'Whether admission fees of members or authorised assistants received by the assessee is taxable income in its hands?" (Answer-Yes) Annexure-2 36 ITR 222 (SC) 'Whether subscription/entrance fee received from members should be included in the assessable income of the assessee?" (Answer-Yes) Annexure-3 161 ITR 853 (Patna) 'Whether entrance fee received by the club at the time of entrance of the new member is a receipt of revenue nature and chargeable to tax in the hands of the club?" (Answer-Yes) Annexure-4 161 ITR 861 (Patna) 'Whether entrance fees are in the nature of capital receipts?" (Answer-No) Annexure-5 ITA No. 2076 to 2080/Mds/2010 Entrance/Admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
