9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) For the Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM The revenue is in appeal before us against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 04.1.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 79, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is running a plant located at Sahibabad District Ghaziabad, UP, a notified backward area, consequently entitled to exemption under the provisions of the UP Sales Tax Act. The quantum and period of the subsidy dependant on the point of time at which the plant commenced production and is determinable as a percentage of the fixed capital investment. In the computation of income filed along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. 2.2 After having both sides we find that the issue stands already concluded against the department by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. We also find that the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2004) 88 ITD 273. The order of the Commissioner of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lves are based upon the binding precedent of the Apex Court, as cited supra. We decline to interfere." 4. Ld. Departmental Representative agreed with the proposition that the issues are covered by the ITAT order in favour of the assessee. However, he submitted that department is in appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this regard. 5. Following the aforesaid precedent, we affirm the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
