9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril 2001. While it is correct that no question of equity is involved in taxing matters, this principle does not obviate the necessity of the revenue being fair to the Court, and it points out that identical questions were decided against it. Mr Chhotaray could not or perhaps would not say whether the revenue has challenged the decisions in the case of Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd [2020 (6) TMI 587 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Prime Securities Ltd. [2010 (12) TMI 475 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and JSW Energy Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 823 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] These decisions were delivered in 2020, 2011 and 2015. Undoubtedly, the departments whom Mr Chhotaray represents would know whether the revenue challenged these matters before the Hon'ble Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amendment in Explanation 1 to section 115JB in Finance (No. 2) Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 by inserting clause (I), also ignoring the principal laid down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) and further ignoring the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in this regard?" 5. Mr Chhotaray urged the admission of this Appeal on the above substantial question of law without pointing out to us that an identical question has been answered against the revenue by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangaluru Vs Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd (2020) 117 taxmann.com 391 (Bombay), and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ghaswala & Ors (supra) was not considered by this Court is incorrect. This decision was considered in Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd (supra) and Prime Securities Ltd. (Supra). Further, the question now sought to be framed is answered against the revenue in the case of JSW Energy Ltd (supra). Again, even this judgment was not pointed out to us on behalf of the revenue. 9. Mr Chhotaray, then went to the extent of urging that the three decisions of the Coordinate Benches were improper because they were "obtained by the assessee by suppressing some material". To our query, what material was allegedly suppressed? Mr Chhotaray submitted that the material was some circulars of the CBDT to the effect that the assesses must approach the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the ITAT, perhaps advisedly. 14. Mr Chhotaray complains that "these days none of the Counsel are interested in going to the facts and only wish to argue on the law". Since this is an appeal that can be entertained only on substantial questions of law, at least we do not find anything odd in the Counsel addressing the Court on questions of law rather than facts. Be that as it may, if a point was not even raised before the ITAT and is not even framed in the memo of appeal, we fail to understand how such a question could be said to be involved in an Appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act. 15. In this case, at least three Coordinate Benches have taken the view that where an assessee computed book profits as per the prevailing law, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
