9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax, Mumbai [2012 (2) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that profit on transfer of DEPB would be sale value of DEPB less its face value which represents the cost of DEPB and not the entire sum received by assessee on such transfer & ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] that non consideration of a decision of jurisdictional court or of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HHC. These grounds were disposed off by Hon ble Tribunal vide para-4 by holding as under:- 4. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel fairly conceded that these grounds are decided against the assessee by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals 328 ITR 451. In view of the above fair admission on the part of the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modified. 5. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that there is no apparent mistake in the order passed by Hon ble ITAT as the Hon ble Tribunal had considered the decision that was available at that time. He thus submitted that there was no reason to recall the order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that while deciding the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake apparent from the record. 8. In the light of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra) and in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (supra), we are of the view that there is mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. In view of the aforesaid facts, we recall the order only for the limited purpose of adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
