9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deductions in respect of pass book benefit receivable amounting to `4,46,46,976/- by the assessee . The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of industrial and agrochemicals. 2. There is a long discussion in the assessment order in respect of the grounds taken in the appeal. However, both the grounds are covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier orders of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case. So far as Ground No.1 is concerned, which relates to the taxability of advance licence benefits receivable, the Tribunal has decided that no income accrues until the imports are made and the raw materials are consumed. In the year before us, it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 1995-96. The Tribunal in its order for the assessment year 1995-96 has dealt with the arguments of the revenue based on the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in paragraphs 13 onwards. It was held by the Tribunal that every aspect highlighted in the order of the Ahmedabad Bench has been duly explained on behalf of the assessee. In fact the Tribunal took the view that there was no distinction between the facts of the assessee s case and the facts of the case before the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Phosphorus Limited (supra) and that it was in order for the Ahmedabad Bench to have referred the issue to a Larger Bench for the sake of consistency, having regard to the orders of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in Jam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der it fit to admit the appeals. Copies of all the orders of the Tribunal and the judgments of the High Court have been filed before us. 4. A written submission dated 27.09.2010 had been filed by the learned CIT DR when the matter was posted for hearing on an earlier occasion. We have carefully perused the same. It has been submitted that the earlier orders of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case can no longer be given effect to in the light of the order of the Special Bench Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO (2010) 124 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB). The submission of the learned CIT DR is that the observations in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the order of the Special Bench are in favour of the revenue and they should be followed and the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the sale of the duty entitlement passbook does not represent profits chargeable under section 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that the face value of the duty entitlement passbook shall be deducted from the sale proceeds? (b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the face value of the duty entitlement passbook is chargeable to tax under section 28(iiib) at the time of accrual of income, i.e. when the application for duty entitlement passbook is filed with the competent authority pursuant to the exports made and that the profits on the sale of duty entitlement passbook representing the excess of the sale proceeds over the face value is liable to be considered under section 28(iiid) at the time of sale? Ultima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
