The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Indian Telephone Industries on 23 May, 2011

.'.'.............ax\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\§~§WE.» 

xxxx. . .

 



,.,  .AM._~..._..,_w,A.,..w,.»«;.u.«.~9;m~/g;w«a;;¢:»:.sav»;w

3 «J

THIS rm ES FILED UNDER SECTIQN 2ae~A Q__:= THE
ZNCGME TAX ACT, 1951,. PRAYING TO ALLCEW T§gEfA;§;éEAL
ANS SET ASIDE THE amgas PASSED av ":j:~«:~E4';fVV§>§;_;;:€:::f._«:"5--~

Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE':3«':1{i'\§J 'ITF\~ '%§.C}. ..
25?2/Bang/2604 DATED 29.@3.2:.>Q7« A§\;5£5"C'G.§§»Fi'R€§fy}T'fiVEV"E 

QRDER 0? THE APPELLATE :::c>:\?:%;»~z:s-st%§:::xi'a:,;:i-%L.C'@N'F}:j;2%_;$zvi;s::3

THE ORDER PASSED BY ms 3dI'N"§"*».CO¥vI{S?£--}.§a§:'{§Ng;§wQ}?.:
INCOME TAX (ASSETS)? sPEcz;§L~~%Ms2ANGE._,§' "IL:"§3fi${s'é--§:€j§33;'L{3RE. "

THIS ETA CGMVIN-€:3 Qf€__ F§,Qi;r>~{"z1»§:_;1r§iéI::sIor«: THIS Dmr',
SABHAHIT 3.2. E}ELIVERE.C} _T.HE._FC}LiC3,Wi%$§G":

:V;?his"'a';;§ ;ea«E 'T§::*~,: fé-£.géi:i«. by_é§1e revenue being agfirieved
by thé' a'n:ier'._§'a ése'd'--.__ by" the Income Tax Appeitate

Tréb;;.na§,. {'4fie.§eEné'fté'r Féferred to as 'the Tribunal')

 5a%;:§'a2%g;:eJ'*%agnghA*%2i{, gn LTA. N9.2S}'2/Bang;'20i34 dated

 the order sf the !3s§3§3€1§af€

Cénjmé$s§r}f;j'é3% cmfirmmg the arder gassed by the Saint

 '»-=._ '-».._C9mn§év$_:§éé3ner 9? income Tax (Asst), Sgeciai Range-«H,

 .:§§a;f:§.a§are.

§
§
§
§
2%
§
2%
\
§
2%
§
*$
\
\
R
ix
\\t
%
\
%
X
\
§:\

$3
Kg



 



Z. The substantéa cguestien of iaw that ari.s___es fer

determination as per the appeiiarsts is as ta w?2jefv§ife;f '¥:he

excise duty actuaiéy paid by the assessee.-fi'ee:'ii:VV"f§'§§";:fie

added in the vaiuatien of the C¥a_Sér:g..éstegféfi'e4S'*f§er.V'SeCtiesf; 2

145A ef the Inceme Tax Act, 1953 

as 'the Act') when the item'?_e€.$tock"--ffic;er--A:--":'..3e«§%§t--..:.."4€femm§ssioner ef Income Tax

(Asstg "es: 28u.O'3.._e:[2;O 0O Vfioéding that the excise duty Eeviable

   g::>o'd':"s:é shouid be taken inte censideration
 dosing steak as per the judgement ef

 _ tfzen §~'~'i.en5:§_'e%e.é:.;:preme Ceurt in tee case ef CGMMIESISNER
 Vzrfsczefie TAX vs. BRITISH eaxwrs {(1991} :88 rm 44

 The fixepeééaie fiemmésséener by erder éatee



./ X



\\ux

 



féiefi enly an the  hag
been made to the Avrsptsy  of the
Act by the Finance  effect frsm
om4.2.999.__  nded as m the
instant ;:§'§§rta§ns t0 the year 199?»

I998 ¢a.rz.d   is the Act by inserting

Sectiég a p§§i<:ab¥e to the assessment
year   we hofd that the appeal is

demgid ef me%'§t--afgvd pfiss the following Order:~

  is dismissed.

3&3;
EEEBGE

S&f§
E3333

$333

.

E
.
$
$
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

-§
§
§
\
§:
§:
\\.’
§-_:
§:
§-_:
§:
.§:
§:
.§_’:
=s;
\’

/