9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny, which leased out machinery owned by it, to third parties, who used the machinery for manufacture of articles or things as specified in Section 32A(2)(b)(III) would be entitled to investment allowance in respect of such machinery under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. Validity of Recall of order – Held that:- The issue of whether the Tribunal could have rectified its mistake is settled in Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] - The Admissibility of the claim of the assessee to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, in a case like this, has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue - An order which is contrary to a ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the claim of the respondent assessee to investment allowance on bottle washer machine. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. Vs. Narang Dairy Products reported in 219 ITR 470. In C.I.T. Vs. Narang Dairy Products (supra) the Supreme Court held that under Section 33(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, development rebate was only allowed in respect of new machinery and plant, which was owned by the assessee and was wholly used for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance of investment allowance. The registry was directed to fix the appeal for hearing on the limited issue of admissibility of deduction under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue has challenged the order of the learned Tribunal allowing the Miscellaneous Application inter alia contending that the appeal having earlier been disposed of, the Miscellaneous Application could not have been entertained. Mr. Bhowmik appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the appeal was finally decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by its order dated 13th August, 1997. There were no grounds for recalling the order. Mr. Bhowmik submitted that there were contradictory decisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssibility of the claim of the assessee to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, in a case like this, has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (supra). The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (supra) relates directly to Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, which was in issue in the case of the assessee, Mr. Bhowmik s submission, that the issue was debatable, cannot be accepted. An order, which is contrary to a judgment of the Supreme Court, is patently erroneous. When the Supreme Court renders a decision enunciating a principle of law, it is assumed that, what was enunciated by the Supreme Court, was in fact, the law from the inception. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
