9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitions with Nos. 20154 and 20155 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari for getting the order dated 18.3.2011 passed in M.P.Nos.11 13/Mds/2011 in I.T.A.No.1540/Mds/2006 and 2148/Mds/2007 quashed. Likewise, Writ Petition Nos. 20156 and 20157 of 2011 aimed at seeking issue of similar writ in respect of order dated 6.2.2008 passed in I.T.A.No. 1540/Mds/2006 and order dated 24.3.2008 passed in I.T.A.No.2148/Mds/2007, quashed. The Hon'ble High Court, while dealing with these writ petitions, has observed in para 5 of its order dated 12.9.2011, as under: 5. In view of the above circumstances, it has to be held that as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... braham P. George, Accountant Member, but the appeals in I.T.A.No. 1540/Mds/2006 alongwith I.T.A.No. 1325/Mds/2006 vide order dated 6.2.2008 and connecting appeals in I.T.A.No. 2148/Mds/2007 and Others were disposed of vide order dated 24.3.2008 by the Bench comprising of Shri M.K.Chaturvedi, Hon'ble VP, and Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member. In compliance to the High Court s directions, these M.P Nos.11 13/Mds/2011 were heard alongwith appeals in I.T.A.Nos. 1540/Mds/2006 and 2148/Mds/2007 on the impugned issue. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the entire material available on record. We have found that originally, the orders dated 6.2.2008 and 24.3.2008 were passed in I.T.A.Nos. 1540/Mds/2006 and 2148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has given the above extracted direction, we have to decide the issue on merits involved in these appeals. It was noticed that the decisions on which the Sr. counsel has relied, were rendered subsequently. The decisions on which reliance has been placed before the Hon'ble High Court as well as before us and which were not considered by the Bench are as under: Agarwal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd. vs CIT, 257 ITR 235(M.P) Saipem S.P.A. vs Dy. CIT 276 ITR (AT) 055(ITAT Del) DLF Universal Ltd vs CIT 306 ITR 271 (Del) 5. The above decisions were not available before the Assessing Officer as well. We are unable to ascertain as to whether the facts involved in all these cases are identical or distinguishable. Therefore, we deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
