9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us income are part and parcel of income for exemption under Section 10A - HELD THAT:- We find that there is inconsistency in the order in the sense that the Tribunal, considered the issue relating to net income from training activity, which was held to be part and parcel of the assessee s income entitled to exemption under Section 10A of the Act. The Tribunal, after taking note of its decision in the assessee s group companies case remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh after examining the true nature of the training activities and character of income earned by the assessee out of such activity. Tribunal dismissed the Revenue s appeal and upheld the order passed by the CIT(A) with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Tribunal does not contain elaborate reasons. But, the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, we are required to see as to whether the order passed by the CIT(A) contains sufficient reasons, which prompted the Tribunal to confirm the same. On a reading, it is evidently clear that the CIT(A) has done a thorough and elaborate exercise and arrived at a finding. - Tax Case Appeal No.1015 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2019 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For the Respondent : Ms.Sree Lakshmi Valli for Mr.N.Muthukumar ORDER T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by merely observing that there was no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue on the issue of deletion of depreciation of ₹ 7,06,47,733? 4. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, it is the submission of Ms.Sree Lakshmi Valli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that it is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the assessee s own case in TCA.No.599 of 2010 dated 13.7.2010 for the assessment year 2001-02, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that gain due to fluctuation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the assessee. 9. It is the submission of Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal erroneously applied the Third Proviso to Section 10A of the Act, which came into effect substituting Section 10A as it originally stood, by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 01.4.2001 and would be applicable only from the assessment year 2001-02 whereas the present appeal relates to the assessment year 2000-01. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. 10. Ms.Sree Lakshmi Valli, learned counsel for the assessee submits that prior to substitution of the Third Proviso to Section 10A by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. Having held so, the Tribunal, in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, dismissed the Revenue s appeal and upheld the order passed by the CIT(A) with regard to the miscellaneous income namely 39.33%, which was, according to the assessee, derived from its own training centres. The Tribunal could have followed its earlier order in the assessee s group companies case and remanded the issue and could not have rejected the Revenue s appeal and affirmed the finding with regard to the miscellaneous income. Therefore paragraph 10 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent assessee points out that the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by the Revenue. 16. It may be true that the order passed by the Tribunal does not contain elaborate reasons. But, the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, we are required to see as to whether the order passed by the CIT(A) contains sufficient reasons, which prompted the Tribunal to confirm the same. The discussion starts from paragraph 4.6 of the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 25.5.2007 and the crux of the discussions is contained in paragraph 4.6.3. On a reading, it is evidently clear that the CIT(A) has done a thorough and elaborate exercise and arrived at a finding. This view was found proper by the Tribunal and therefore, the Revenue s appeal was dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
