9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p three grounds in this appeal. Ground no. 1 contains a number of sub-grounds. However, the sum and substance of these grounds is contained in ground no. 1(a) that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer who had disallowed a sum of ₹ 26,14,06,249/-, representing assessee s claim towards expenditure incurred on power purchase payable to UPPCL. Ground nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed on 30.06.2008. In this order, it is mentioned that the question of differential rate, that is the difference between the rate stipulated in the agreement and charged by UPSEB in the bills and the rate recommended by independent authority was in dispute and the said dispute was not resolved during the relevant year. Therefore, the contractual liability on account of such differential rate is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC). It is further argued that in view of the decision of Special Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 88 ITD 273 (Bom.), the subsequent bench of the Tribunal could not have differed from the decision of the earlier bench and a proper course of action would have been to place the matter before the President of the Tribunal with a request to constitute Special Bench consisting o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the agreement that power purchase rate was to be studied and revised by an independent authority, therefore, Nair Committee was appointed on 31.08.1994. This Committee determined the rate at ₹ 1.35 per unit. However, the report was submitted by the Committee much after the close of the previous year. It is clear from this order that the Tribunal did not take into account the finding of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
