9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94; and 514/Alld/1995, for the assessment years mentioned above. On 15.12.2005, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the Appeal Nos. 199 of 2005; and 200 of 2005 on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the first proviso to Sec.145(1) of the Act did not apply in the present case. 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case was justified in law in allowing the revision of returned income through revised computation filed by the respondent after expiration of the statutory time limit for revision of return of income. 3. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts as revenue receipt. However, in reply to the notice under Section 142(1), the assessee has claimed the same as capital receipt. But, the plea of the assessee was rejected, while passing the assessment order dated 26.03.1993, under Section 143(3) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide its order dated 23.12.1993 has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Not being satisfied, both the parties have filed cross appeals before the Tribunal, who vide its impugned order dated 11.07.2005, has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the present appeal No.199/2005. In the meantime, when the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim was made that the receipts are capital receipt. Learned counsel has drawn attention to Para-12 of the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 26.03.1993, where it is clearly mentioned that no revised return or revised computation of the income-tax was ever filed. So, he submits that separately, no claim was made by the assessee. The entire claim was made by the assessee in the original return. It is only through the objection in response to the notice under Section 142(1), the nature of the receipt was changed and the same was finally accepted by the Tribunal. So, question no. 2 is not emerging from the impugned order. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the sole issue is pertaining to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
