9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1990 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT]. Disallowance made in respect of payments made under Voluntary retirement Scheme of the company - Held that:- The decision of this Court in Godrej GE Applicances Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 1002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] does conclude the issue against revenue and in favour of the respondent – assessee. Disallowance made for delayed payment of employees contribution to Provident Fund - Held that:- Issue arising herein stands concluded by the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted back to the Bombay High Court ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in admitting fresh claims on account of disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act pertaining to payment on account of Royalty and interest thereon, in total disregard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 ? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal exceeded its powers since the power of an appellate authority, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 187 ITR 688, is only coterminous with the powers of the original authority ? (5) Whether on the facts and in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 from the order of Tribunal dated 30th August, 2013. The order dated 30th August, 2013 of the Tribunal related to assessment year 1999-2000. (b) This Court by the order dated 27th September, 2016 did not entertain the above questions in the above Income Tax Appeal No.475 of 2014. (c) Therefore for reasons indicated in our order dated 27th September, 2016 question nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Re : Question no.3:- (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has followed its decision rendered in the Respondent Assessee's own case for the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. It is an agreed position between the parties that although Revenue did file appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 5. Re : Question no.6 :- (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Godrej GE Applicances Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.161 of 2007) decided on 23rd September, 2008 in dismissing the Revenue's appeal before it. (b) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revenue very fairly states that the decision of this Court in Godrej GE Applicances Ltd. (supra) does conclude the issue against revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee. (c) Therefore, question no.6 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 6. Re : Question no.7 : (a) The impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
