9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. This Order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the point involved is the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 4485 of 2007. 3. Assessee-respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee' filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-1993 declaring income of Rs.4,30,06,580/- by showing its business as investment and finance, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 18.1.1996 on the same income. Along with the return the assessee claimed refund amounting to Rs.29,16.660/- on the basis of credit of deemed TDS on dividend received from a Malaysian company i.e. Pan Century Edible Oils Sdn. Bhd. Malaya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the country is not liable to be taxed under the Act? 3. Whether ITAT was justified in law in recording a finding on an issue which was not raised by the assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(Appeals) but was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and that too in an appeal filed by the Department. 4. Having dismissed the cross objection filed by the assessee, whether the Tribunal was justified in then proceeding to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merits in their favour." 7. On question No.1, the High Court, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. SRM Firm Ors. reported in [1994] 208 ITR 400 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question No.1 in favour of the assessee to the effect that the income arrived by the assessee in Malaysia was not taxable in India at all. 10. We have gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. SRM Firm Ors .(supra) [1994] 208 ITR 400 and judgment of this Court in CIT vs. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (supra) [2004] 267 ITR 654 and we are satisfied that the point involved in these appeals stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. SRM Firm Ors .(supra) [1994] 208 ITR 400 which was duly affirmed by this Court in the case of CIT vs. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (supra)[2004] 267 ITR 654. Incidently, it may be mentioned that the revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
