9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rectified para 7 of its order dated said that before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee has stated that the receipt include payments received form SRL Labs, walk in patients and pathological labs owned by the assessee. The working submitted by the assessee show that the amount of discount given to the Collection Centre is ₹ 11,78,24,030/- as against the disallowance of ₹ 16,80,66,667/- made by the AO. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and following the order dated 16.12.2011 of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own Appeal for the same assessment year 2006-07, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we affirm the same and the Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue stands rejected. No substantial q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order dated 20th December 2010, the Respondent-Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ]. By the order dated 20th March, 2012, the CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 7. The appeal by the Revenue for AY 2008-09 was heard by the ITAT along with its appeal for AY 2006-07. In para 7 of the common order dated 7th May 2015, the ITAT noted as under:- 7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records available on record with us, especially the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. As regards Ground No. 1 relating to restricting the disallowance from ₹ 16,80,66,667/- to ₹ 11,78,24,030/- made u/S 40(A)(i) of the I.T. Act. We find that before the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the aforementioned para 7. The Revenue too filed a rectification application in the order concerning AY 2006-07 contending that the issue had been decided in its favour for AY 2008-09 and that the ITAT should rectify the mistake. 9. It is acknowledged by the learned counsel for the Revenue that, in view of the fact that the ITAT had allowed the Assessee s appeal for AY 2006-07, the rectification made by the ITAT by way of the impugned order dated 31st May 2016, at the instance of the Assessee, should be sustained. The learned counsel for the Revenue states that he is not aware as to whether the ITAT s order in the assessee s appeal for AY 2006-07 has been challenged by the Revenue. 10. In terms of the ITAT s order dated 31st M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
