Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (3.08 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai vs M/S Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd on 27 February, 2008
9. The submission made on behalf of the
revenue that the directions issued by a bench of this
court vide order dated 23.09.2010 in I.T.A.No.36/2006
appears to be attractive at the first blush but on careful
scrutiny of the order it is evident that the tribunal has
referred to the decision of this court in the case of 'CIT
VS. M/S SKYTOP BUILDERS PVT. LTD., AND
OTHERS' rendered in I.T.A.No.29/2006 vide order
dated 10.08.2011 as well as the decision of the supreme
10
court in BILAHARI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., supra
and has held that the assessee was following completed
contract method which was accepted by the department
in the past as well and therefore, there is no justification
for the assessing officer to change the same. For the
aforementioned reasons the submission made on behalf
of the revenue cannot be accepted. Similarly, the
contention that the controversy involved in this case is
covered by decision of this court dated 09.09.2014
rendered in I.T.A.No.835-837/2008 is concerned, suffice
it to say that substantial questions of law involved in the
aforesaid appeals were entirely different. By reading the
order of the tribunal as a whole, it is evident that the
tribunal has taken note of the effect of Section 145 of
the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made on
behalf of the revenue also does not deserve acceptance.
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Income Tax vs M/S Thumbay Holdings (P) Ltd., on 9 September, 2014
On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee
submitted that charge of tax in the instant case pertains
to previous year and not the current year and therefore,
the decision rendered in the case of THUMBAY
HOLDINGS (P) LTD supra has no application to the
fact situation of the case. It is also urged that method of
accounting once adopted can be followed. In support of
aforesaid submission, reference has been made to
decision of this court dated 10.08.2011 in
I.T.A.No.29/2006.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Skytop Builders Pvt Ltd on 10 August, 2011
9. The submission made on behalf of the
revenue that the directions issued by a bench of this
court vide order dated 23.09.2010 in I.T.A.No.36/2006
appears to be attractive at the first blush but on careful
scrutiny of the order it is evident that the tribunal has
referred to the decision of this court in the case of 'CIT
VS. M/S SKYTOP BUILDERS PVT. LTD., AND
OTHERS' rendered in I.T.A.No.29/2006 vide order
dated 10.08.2011 as well as the decision of the supreme
10
court in BILAHARI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., supra
and has held that the assessee was following completed
contract method which was accepted by the department
in the past as well and therefore, there is no justification
for the assessing officer to change the same. For the
aforementioned reasons the submission made on behalf
of the revenue cannot be accepted. Similarly, the
contention that the controversy involved in this case is
covered by decision of this court dated 09.09.2014
rendered in I.T.A.No.835-837/2008 is concerned, suffice
it to say that substantial questions of law involved in the
aforesaid appeals were entirely different. By reading the
order of the tribunal as a whole, it is evident that the
tribunal has taken note of the effect of Section 145 of
the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made on
behalf of the revenue also does not deserve acceptance.
1