9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue are directed against the orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2004-05. Since common issues are involved in these two appeals, they were heard together and, therefore, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by way of this consolidated order. 2. The common ground raised in these appeals reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment had not accepted the order of ITAT and an appeal had been filed against that order of ITAT u/s 260A of the Act. The CIT(A) followed the orders of the ITAT and deleted the disallowance by observing as under(from the order of CIT(A) for AY 2006-07):- 3. During appeal hearing, the appellant f iled copy of the decision in Rajesh Khanna case being ITA No. 4804/Bom/2000, Asst. Yr. 2002-03, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not accepted the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Khanna supra. 3.1 I have considered the rival submissions and the materials on record. It is seen that the only basis for disallowance is that the department is in appeal before High Court in the Rajesh Khanna case supra. There is no other f inding of fact on record. The AO has not stated as to whether there is any order from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO following the orders of ITAT. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the revenue in both the assessment years under consideration are dismissed. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced on this 9th day of February, 2010 - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
