9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer had taken notice of the reduction of rate of tax and tax credit was only given for the tax paid in Oman. Change in tax rates/slab, therefore, would not make any difference; nor would it negate the ratio of the decision dated 02.08.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [2017 (8) TMI 422 - DELHI HIGH COURT] pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11. The ratio of the order would accordingly apply. No substantial question of law - IT Appeal 1090 Of 2018, CM appl. Nos. 40595 And 45166 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2018 - Sanjiv Khanna And Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv. and Deepak Anand, Adv. for the Appellant. ORDER CM APPL. 40595/2018 (seeking condonation of delay) 1. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2011-12 reads as under: DECISION 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee. Similar issues had arisen in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11. 10. A detailed order was passed on 29.03.2016 u/ s 263. 11. The AO is directed to follow the order passed u/s 263 for the A.Y. 2010-11 even for the A.Y. 2011-12. 12. It may be mentioned that on the issue of tax credit the assessee had relied upon letters dated 06.08.2000 and 11.12.2000 before the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of KRIBHCO. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/ s KRIBHCO for advancing his arguments in the case of M/s IFFCO. 13. In the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly refers to the earlier order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act relating to the assessment year 2010-11. It is also recorded that the Tribunal had quashed the said order for the assessment year 2010-11; however, an appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court. Hence, the Principal Commissioner for consistency and as the issue had not attained finality had passed the order under Section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12. 8. In the aforesaid background, ex facie the order dated 02.08.2017 passed in ITA No. 597/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 would equally apply to the present appeal. 9. The contention of the Revenue that there was material change in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
