9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jhaveri) 1. By the way of this Appeal, the Department has challenged the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 06.06.2001. 2. While admitting the matter on 05.02.2002, the following substantial questions of law were raised :- "(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing to deduct the amount of depreciation from the worki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961, that the question whether a company which is liable to pay tax under either provision does not assume importance because specific provision is made in the section saying that all other provisions of the Act shall apply to a MAT company (section 115JA(4) and section 115JB(5)). Similarly, amendments have been made in the relevant Finance Acts providing for payment of advance tax under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar contended that the Issue No.1 is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Assessment) v. Farmson Pharmaceuticals Guj. Ltd. reported in 347 Income Tax Reports 394. In the above decision, the Court had referred to two decisions - Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2002] 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
