Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The CIT had also opined that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd., V. CIT1 and of the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts in CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd.2 and Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT3 which had been relied upon by the appellant would be of no avail to it.
9. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’/’Tribunal’) assailing the assumption of jurisdiction as 1 255 ITR 273 2 251 ITR 15 3 213 ITR 523 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis well as the direction of the CIT to modify the order of assessment dated 13.11.2000 adding back the expenses amounting in toto to a sum of Rs.29,16,167/-. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT.