Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal vs Coordination Committee Of Spm Unions ... on 7 July, 2014
I.T.A. No. 9/2013
with
I.T.A No.7/2013, 8/2013 & 10/2013
07.07.2014
Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Considering the opinion recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 20 of the judgment under appeal in particular, we have no hesitation in observing that no substantial question of law arises much less as articulated as Substantial Question of Law No.1.
We place on record the submission made by the counsel for the respondents that for the subsequent assessment years, the Assessing Officer has accepted the stand of the respondents that the amount received by the respondents from members is not treated as income of the respondents. We need not dilate on this matter any further.
As regards substantial question of law formulated as No.2, we are not impressed even with the said question and more so, the expenses allowed by the Assessing Officer are only Rs.10,000/-.
Dismissed.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
S/