9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income-tax v. Ramamurthi [1976 (10) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court] wherein the said benefit already allowed - Matter is remanded to Tribunal to decide same afresh. - Trade Tax Revision No. 115, 116, 117, 118, 120 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2017 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. For the Applicant : Pradeep Agrawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER 1. In all these revisions common questions of law are involved and hence as agreed and requested by learned counsel for the parties all these revisions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. It is stated at the Bar that questions of law raised in these revisions are squarely covered by judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed by this Court in the bunch of Trade Tax Revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of the assessees. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Single Member of the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Department and restored the order passed by the A.O. where he has denied / recalled the benefit already given pertaining to the tax paid on paddy. Not being satisfied, the assessees have knocked the door of this Court through the present revisions. With this background, Sri Pradeep Agarwal learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that each assessee has established a new units for making rice from paddy and applied the eligibility certificate which was granted under section 4-A of the Act. As per section 4-BB, the assessees were entitled for set off of the tax already paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the Department has supported the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal has decided only the proceedings passed under Section 22 of the Trade Tax Act. I have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. From the record, it appears that the benefit of Section 4-BB of the Act is the statutory benefit and the assessees are entitled for the said benefit. To this effect, the Commissioner has already issued a circular no. 554 dated 22.07.2004. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhagwan Rishab Nath (Supra) has already allowed the said benefit but in the instant cases, the Single Member who was the part of the Division Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 in Trade Tax Revision No. 31 of 2009 (M/s H.B. Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Hardoi Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Commercial Tax Bhawan) with other connected matters wherein the short order passed by this Court reads as under: Heard Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Sanjieva Shakhdhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent. Both the parties have agreed that the facts and the issues involved in the above cases are identical. Hence, all these revisions are being disposed of by a common order. Further, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the revenue submit that the controversy involved in the present revisions is similar to the Bunch of Revision No. 108 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
