9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal vide its order dated 25.07.1979 referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court in terms of Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (said Act): 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the valuation of the shares held by the assessee in Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Private Limited as made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the inclusion in the net wealth of the assessee the amount due to the assessee by certain parties in Portugal ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Senior Advocate then pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal, in the present case, in its judgment and order dated 08.02.1977 had in fact relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, Pune Bench and stated that it finds itself in complete agreement, both, with the view that the Tribunal, Pune Bench has expressed and with the decision that is given on this issue. Thereafter, however, by the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss all the Appeals. 6. Mr. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate submits that once, the Appellate Tribunal had agreed with the view expressed by Tribunal, Pune Bench, there was no question of dismissal of all the Appeals, but, the same course of action as was followed by the Tribunal, Pune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax, Karnataka-I, Bangalore to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Panaji and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Judl)-I, office of CCIT, Bangalore, on the precise issue of the Lisbon fund being business advance given for purchase of machinery prior to the liberation of Goa by the applicant no. 1 and his wife, Sushila Timblo. No doubt, this communication relates to the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, however, since, it refers to the very same Lisbon fund, according to us, the same is relevant. 12. For convenience of reference, we incorporate the contents of the communication dated 29.03.1994. I am directed to communicate the Commissioner's remarks on the order sheet for necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) The claim itself was barred by limitation (under article 309 of PCC), the claim cannot be enforced after 20 years in a court of law. (2) Govt. of India did not permit import as desired by the assessees. (3) Economic relations with Portugal had not revived even though the treaty of 1972 had provided for the same. (4) Ban on remittances were continuing. We had taken up the matter before the Tribunal. And the appeals are pending. The petitioners' request is that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Department should withdraw the grounds (Ground Nos.13, 13, 2, 2, 8, 7, 8, 2, 9 & 9) for Assessment Years 1980-81 to 89-90 in this respect. I have thought over the matter carefully. I am of the view that there is no p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders." 13. Based upon the aforesaid communication dated 29.03.1994, the Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench has disposed off 20 matters in respect of these very assessees for the assessment year 1969- 70 to 1979-80, on the issue of Lisbon fund. The Tribunal, allowed the Appeals where relief was denied to the assessee and dismissed the Appeals where relief was already granted to the assessee. 14. Ordinarily, therefore, we see no good reason as to why the same reasons are not prevailing when it comes to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. In fact, the Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, which disposed off the 20 matters or for that matter, the aforesaid letter dated 29.03.1994 merely records that the Reference for the assessment years 1964-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s very fund. 18. Mr. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate has correctly relied upon the order made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Civil Appeal Nos. 2899-2902/2011 decided on 30.01.2020), which reads as follows: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Gauhati at Gauhati in I.T.A. Nos. 8/2006, 6/2007, 7/2007 and 8/2007. The assessment years involved in these appeals are from 1997-1998 to 2000-2001. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is whether transport subsidy received by the assessee during the aforesaid assessment years is in the nature of revenue receipt or capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
