9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95 of 1995 because all these cases involves identical point. Secondly, they all arise out of common impugned order passed by the Tribunal (ITAT) and lastly, it is in relation to same assessee, except the difference is that each case relates to different assessment year. 2. This is an application made by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under section 256(2) of Income-tax Act consequent u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that this Court should call the questions proposed by the revenue by asking the Tribunal to refer to this court. 3. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that the application has no merit. In other words, the questions proposed do not satisfy the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee the said individual assessee in his capacity as AOP. 6. In our opinion, when on facts, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that for want of any conclusive evidence there was no basis for holding existence of AOP then in such event, no referable question of law is made out for answer by this Court in section 256(1) proceedings. The question, whether there is a material, or not for holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
