9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions in the initial AY, it nevertheless had to fulfil the such eligibility condition for every one of the ten consecutive AYs inclusive of the initial AY in order to be eligible for the deduction. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2004. It was in the light of these facts that the Court framed the second question of law in these appeals. The order of 04.05.2017 noticed that the requirement of pronouncing the judgment in open court as it were, did not exist before the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudhir Choudhrie (2005) 278 ITR 490 (Del). As a result of that judgment, Rule 34 was inserted in the ITAT Rules to facilitate that procedure. The Court, in its order of 04.05.2017 noticed and held that since the change of Rule was prospective, there was no illegality - to an order on account of signature of Shri Ram Bahadur on 01.03.2004 even though its author had signed it earlier. 4. In the opinion of this Court, the merits of the issue is covered by the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97- 98, the Assessee was facing a loss and, therefore, did not make a claim. Nevertheless that continued to remain the initial AY. The Assessee claimed deduction only in regard to the remaining years. The ten years would begin to be counted from the AY 1997-98 itself although the deduction was not claimed for that AY. It could not have been claimed for AY 1997-98 because under Section 80- IA, the aggregate deduction claimed of the Assessee could not have exceeded its gross total income. 44. The question is whether on the last day of the previous relevant to AY 1997-98 the Assessee fulfilled the eligibility condition? It was repeatedly urged by Mr. Manchanda that the investment in P&M on the last date of previous year was above ₹ 60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000-01) of the Act. The Court also had the occasion to exercise power under Section 263 for A.Y. 2001-02 in circumstances similar or rather identical to the present one. 9. Given these facts, the ruling of this Court in its judgment of 20.07.2017 covers the merits of the appeal i.e. question No.1 framed for its merits for A.Y. 1999-00 in this appeal. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that as to the character of the order, even if the Revenue were to succeed, upon remission which would be the best order it can claim, the ultimate result would be the same i.e. since the ITAT would be bound by the judgment of 20.07.2017. 10. Having regard to the above facts, the question No.1 framed for this appeal is answered against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
