9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase laws would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present facts, as pointed out hereinabove, the Tribunal has categorically recorded that all the decisions which were referred to and relied upon by the petitioner on the date of hearing on 9th September, 2015 have been dealt with. - Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon , JJ. Mr. Firoze Andhyarujina, Senior Counsel with Mr.Manek Andhyarujina i/b Sameer Dalal for the Petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents ORDER P. C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 28th September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of Manilal Tarachand (supra) cited during the course of hearing; and (c) Vague Notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. However, before us and also before the Tribunal at the hearing of Miscellaneous Application, the only issue urged is with regard to non consideration of the decision of Gujarat High Court in Manilal Tarachand (supra). According to the petitioner the above decision in Manilal Tarachand (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of the petitioner's case and is in its favour. However, the impugned order while dealing with petitioner's contention that the decision of Manilal Tarachand (supra) was relied upon during hearing of appeal on 9th September, 2015 leadi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon during hearing held on 9th September, 2015 leading to the order dated 14th September, 2015. 6. Mr.Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 295 ITR Page 466 and a unreported decision of the Gujarat High Court in Dattani and Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (Income Tax Appeal No.847 of 2013) decided on 21st October, 2013 in support of his submission that where the Tribunal has passed the order under Section 254(1) of the Act and committed a mistake in not having considered the decision which was relied upon during course of hearing before it, then the application has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
