9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. S.V. Subramaniam represented that the writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,90,186 stated to be the due with future interest as per the provisions of sections 240 and 244 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The case of the writ petitioner is that the refund has become due to the petitioner consequent to an appellate order of the Income tax Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this court which came to be numbered as T.C. No.1117 of 1984 (CIT v. K.T.M.S. Mohamood [1997] 228 ITR 113) on the file of this court and this court by a judgment dated August 8, 1996, has not accepted the views of the Tribunal that the addition should be deleted and answered the questions arising in the tax case in favour of the Department. In other words, the assessment, modified in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, the claim of the petitioner also must share the same fate. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the refund of Rs.1,90,186 or the interest thereon on the basis of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which has no legal force after the judgment in T.C. No.1117 of l984. Accordingly, this court holds that the writ petition has no merit due to the change in circumstances c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
