9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FOR THE APPELLANT : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These appeals arise in common background, we may record facts from Tax Appeal No.636 of 2016. 2. Assessee has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.12.2015 raising following questions for our consideration. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no apparent error in the consequential order of the Assessing Officer dated 10.02.2010 (consequent to order of C.I.T. (Appeals) dated 15.01.2010), wherein he excluded capital receipts of ₹ 80,88,026/- and ₹ 3,57,05,815/- in computation of total inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... economic environment of Kutch district live. The scheme was only limited to the entrepreneurs who had set up industrial unit in the Kutch district of Gujarat before the appellant case is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mum.(SB) as relied on by the Learned Counsel. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case vs. Ponii Sugars Chemicals Ltd. 260 ITR 605 (MAD). This decision was latter on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) by holding that the character of the receipt in the hands of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 115JB of the Act. 8. The Assessing Officer by its order dated 21.10.2011 rejected such application on the ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not given any such directions. While giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), he would be confined by such order only. 9. This order traveled to Tribunal after crossing the stage of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the same, making following observations: 7. We have considered rival contentions gone through the record carefully. As far as the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Ito Vs. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd (supra) is concerned, in that case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The AO has no jurisdiction to consider other issues which are not originated from the order of the CIT(A) while giving effect to that order. In other words, the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. Its jurisdiction is limited for execution of decree only. By way of this appeal as well as by application under section 154 of the Act, the assessee has been persuading the AO to go beyond the decree and make adjustment which he has no power. All arguments would be relevant if the assessee has challenged the computation under Section 115JB before the ld.CIT and the ld.CIT(A) has remitted the issue to AO for verification or adjudication or specifically directing to make adjustment by excluding this amount from the book profit. In the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
