9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per. N. M. Jamdar, J) Heard Mr. Jitendra Jain, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. K. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent. 2. Admit, on the following question of law: 'Whether the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8 September 2017 in the Income Tax Appeal No. 58 of 2017 needs to be set aside in view of the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of the Income Tax Act assessing income at Rs. 25,28,27,541/-. The Assessing Officer computed disallowance under Section 8D(2)(ii) at Rs. 47,10,440/- and under Section 8D(2) (iii) Rs. 16,53,284/-. The Appellant challenged the assessment by filing an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed by order dated 28 December 2016 and further appeal filed before the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji on 8 September 2017 without considering the decision of the Special Bench. He submitted that the decision of the Special Bench is binding on the Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Authority, Panaji, is correct. 6. The Tribunal, before it pronounced its decision could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1), New Delhi v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. in IT Appeal No. 502 (Delhi) of 2012. Accordingly, the question of law as framed is answered as above. 7. The Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8 September 2017 is quashed and set aside. The Appeal no. 58 of 2017 stands restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji. The Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
