9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion, we do not think we should entertain it. There is a difference and vast as it is, between an order being subjected to challenge and the challenge having succeeded. In the later case, the order is wiped out because then it is quashed and set aside. Today, a challenge is merely pending. That cannot be equated to the challenge succeeding. That hurdle is yet to be crossed. If that is not crossed, the initial order of restoration of registration continues to bind the Revenue. As a result of the above discussion, we do not find that the questions proposed are substantial questions of law - Income Tax Appeal No. 1851 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And Prakash D. Naik, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Sham Walv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) by order dated 8th November, 2007. Since the registration has been cancelled, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee is to be treated like any other assessee and cannot take assistance of the above two legal provisions. Relying upon his findings for the assessment years 20062007 and 2007-2008, the assessment was finalized treating the assessee as an Association Of Persons. 5. A showcause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer dated 6th December, 2010 calling upon the assessee why its income should not be brought to tax in the above terms. 6. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of an explanation, was not satisfied and proceeded to pass his order. 7. Aggrieved by that and by cancellation of registration, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 20,00,000/made to the corpus fund and disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹ 15,16,76,304/claimed as application of income were not required to be adjudicated as the assessee was held to be entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons given in the A.Y.2006-2007 A.Y.2007-2008 when such finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal has already been appealed against before this Hon'ble Court? 11. It is conceded that unless the Revenue gets over the difficulty it faces insofar as question no. (i) as is reproduced is concerned, there is no occasion for it to argue that question no.(ii) is a substantial question of law. We repeatedly asked Mr. Walve as to how the Revenue has framed and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
