9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Jharkhand High Court has agreed with the proposition that in view of the law laid down in Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. [ 2011 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT ], the matters which were refused permissions by the CoD to pursue the appeal cannot be reopened. However, it is observed that everything will depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case - It has been found that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Kohli, JJ. Shri Arijit Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Udai Khanna and Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri G. Umapathy, Sr. Advocate, Rohit K. Singh, AOR, for the Respondent. ORDER We have heard Mr. Arijit Prasad, Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri G. Umapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 11 (S.C.), this Court has clearly held that the mechanism which was set up for getting approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was out-lived. He submits that the Court has, therefore, recalled the directions issued in the earlier orders recorded in ONGC (1992) and ONGC (1995), ONGC (2004), ONGC (2007) [ONGC II, ONGC III and ONGC IV]. 4. Shri Prasad, Learned Senior Counsel submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenge and refused the permission to the respondent-assessee. 7. No doubt that Mr. Prasad submits that the permission granted was for the subsequent year and not for the same assessment year. However, it cannot be disputed that the issues in both the appeals of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee were interconnected. In the peculiar circumstances the High Court exercised its discretion to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
