9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addl. CIT [2012 (3) TMI 212 - ITAT MUMBAI] would be applicable with respect to the aforesaid issues or not, is kept open. - Tax Appeal Nos. 203, 205, 206, 207, 209, 211, 213 & 215 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2013 - M.R. SHAH AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ. For the Appellant : Sudhir M. Mehta. For the Respondent : S.N. Divatia. JUDGMENT:- PER : M.R. SHAH As for the reasons stated hereinafter there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties to remand the respective appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the following questions of law raised in the respective appeals, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. Tax Appeal No. 203/2013 is pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004-05. 2.7 Tax Appeal No. 213/2013 has been preferred by the assessee challenging/vthe impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 3578/2008 with respect to the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2.8 Tax Appeal No. 215/2013 has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1286/2009 with respect to the Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. In the aforesaid appeals preferred by the assessee the proposed questions are with respect to disallowance under Section 35E / 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and with respect to disallowance of depreciation of sale and lease back assets. It is required to be noted that the contention on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Divetia, learned advocate that the submissions were also made that the alternative question be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the same is also not considered. 6. It is submitted that with respect to question no. 2 i.e. disallowance on depreciation of sale and lease back assets, though there was no concession given by the assessee and in fact it was seriously pressed into service, the same has not been considered by the tribunal. It is therefore requested to remand the appeals to the tribunal to consider the aforesaid questions. 7. Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue has submitted that if this Court is inclined to remand the appeals to the tribunal to consider the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed the above observations, and it is the specific case on behalf of the assessee that all the aforesaid grounds were pressed into service very seriously and arguments were also made, we deem it fit to remand the matters to the tribunal to decide the aforesaid questions afresh in accordance with law on its own merits. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Tax appeals, being Tax Appeal Nos. 203/2013, 205/2013, 206/2013, 207/2013 preferred by the revenue as well as Tax Appeal Nos. 209/2013, 211/2013, 213/2013 and 215/2013 preferred by the assessee are hereby allowed in part and respective ITA Nos. 84/2007, 1468/2007, 3578/2008 and 1669/2009 with respect to Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
