9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue. The appeal before the Tribunal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore (for short "the Appellate Authority or AA") dated 05.07.2004 in ITA No.190/DCIT, C-12(1)CIT(A)III/01-02, whereby the AA had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30.03.2001. 2. This appeal was admitted to consider the substantial questions of law as formulated in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the memorandum of appeal. The substantial questions of law read thus: i. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of contri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantial question of law framed in the present appeal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-revenue did not dispute the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. Hence, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the appellant in terms of the judgment dated 02.11.2007 passed in ITA No.3/2002. 6. Insofar as the second question is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants-revenue submitted that it is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 10.12.2009 in ITA No.27/2005 whereby the said question has been answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Having confronted with this, learned counsel appearing for the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of India of any goods or merchandise, is liable be reduced by 90% as provided under clause(1) of (baa) of Section 80HHC of the Act?"
10. The Division Bench answered the said question in favour of the assessee for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 04.08.2010. In view thereof, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee prayed for deciding the said question in favour of the assessee.
11. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the revenue did not dispute the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. Hence, we answer the third question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the judgment dated 04.08.2010 in ITA 28/2005.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
