Siemens (India) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 28 May, 1976
12. The second aspect of the matter, however, is that in the order of the Commissioner, the Commissioner has not, in my opinion, set aside the appellate order in its entirety. He has only gone into the question relating to the claim of Rs. 68.518-.17. When the Commissioner says that "the impugned appellate order will hence be set aside", in my opinion, the Commissioner means the appellate order dealing with that portion of the order which deals with the claim of Rs. 68,518.17. Where the Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner "to pass fresh order in accordance with law after verifying the details of the sales" he was dealing with the sales covered by the claim of Rs. 68,518.17. The Commissioner has not indicated any ground as to the claim for disallowance of the claim of Rs. 49,82,246.90. To consider the question how to deal with an order of this type, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-I v. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co, [1959] 36 I.T.R. 429 at 435 and in the case of Pulipati Subbarao & Co. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada [1959] 35 I.T.R. 673 at 675.