9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtmental representative before the Tribunal also accepted the position. Inspite of the agreed position between the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order yet remands this very issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination/determination. The Petitioner has informed us that the appeal for the subsequent Assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2007-2008 is scheduled to come up before the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellants : Mr Farrokh Irani, Mr Paras S Savla, Mr Harsh R Shah For the Respondents : Mr A R Malhotra Mr N A Kazi ORDER P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for final disposal at the request of the counsel. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 4 March 2015 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partmental representative before the Tribunal also accepted the position. Inspite of the agreed position between the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order yet remands this very issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination/determination. This is without in any manner even attempting to indicate why and how its earlier decision will not apply to the facts for the subsequent Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Assessing officer for de novo examination disregarding the earlier order. All this would happen without the Tribunal at any point of time considering for what reason is it's own order for the A.Y. 2005-2006 in respect of the Petitioner on identical facts, does not correctly decide the dispute. 6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances and primarily to correct the approach the Tribunal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
