9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elivered by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J. - The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, dated November 7, 2003, made in I. T. A. No. 2176/Mds/1996 for the assessment year 1992-93. 2. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on December 30, 1992, declaring taxable income of Rs. 35,62,410. The Assessing Officer, while c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal allowed the claim by following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Edcons (India) P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 86. The correctness of the same is canvassed before this court by filing this appeal and by formulating the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is a party (Raviraja Pandian J.) in the case of Nexus Computer P. Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 144 (Mad) has considered the Division Bench judgment of this court in Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 366 and also the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Willaimson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619, which has taken a contrary view. George Willaimson (Assam) Ltd.'s case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hayammed Kutty v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360; [2000] 119 STC 505 as to the binding nature of the order, which has been passed at the time of the disposal of the special leave petition, held that the Gauhati High Court judgment has been confirmed by the apex court and following the Supreme Court order, this court held the issue in favour of the assessee. 5. The facts in this case are no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
