9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. [ 2016 (8) TMI 650 - SUPREME COURT] on a cursory reading of section 260A(7), the said section does not purport in any manner to curtail or restrict the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals under section 260A. That does not in any ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssisted by the learned counsel for the Revenue-applicant as well as the assessee and Mr. Khaitan, learned senior counsel for the assessee brought to our notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., reported in [2015] 377 ITR 112 (SC). In this judgment, it has been, inter alia, held : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court authorities on this point, we do not consider it necessary to deliberate on this point further. We, accordingly, hold that the review petition is maintainable. It was the submission of Mr. Khaitan that in the event the review application is allowed, the entire appeal will revive in its original form and in such a situation this Court will have to examine as to whether the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is not in dispute that the aggregate tax effect of the two assessment years involved in the subject appeal is below ₹ 20 lakhs. On this point Mr. Khaitan has relied on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Rekha Mukherjee vs. Ashis Kumar Das Ors. [AIR 2005 Cal 74], in which it has been, inter alia, held : Once the review is granted, the earlier decree o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
