9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Ramakotaiah (Accountant Member) The present Miscellaneous Application is raised by the assessee on the following reasons: - "1.1 The decision in the case of Mrs. Bakhtawar B. Dubhash delivered by the Hon'ble ITAT 'G' Bench Mumbai reported as 2009-TIOL-288-ITATMUM was relied by the AR of the appellant during the course of the appellate proceedings and copies of the same were also submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the hands of the director as a perquisite. It is the settled proposition of law that an amount can be taxed only once and not twice. Since in the instant case the amount has already been taxed in the hands of the company by disallowing the same as not an allowable expenditure, therefore, in our opinion, the same cannot be added in the hands of the director as value of any benefit or perquisite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Benches of the Tribunal was not distinguished, therefore, a mistake apparent from record has crept in. The issue could not be decided without being referred to a Special Bench to reconcile the difference, if at all, between the two views. Reference in this regard is invited to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane [1990] 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter considering the facts and law, concurred with the findings of the CIT(A) rejecting the contentions. 4. It is the contention of the assessee that the above said case of Mrs. Bakhtawar Dubhash B. Dubhash in 2009-TIOL-288-ITAT-MUM was relied upon but the same was not discussed or distinguished. Since this Coordinate Bench decision has a bearing on the issue the Tribunal ought to have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
