TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows Revenue's Petition for 2008-09, directs reexamination in accordance with High Court ruling.</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai Versus M/s. Polaris Financial Technology Limited (Formerly known as Polaris Software Lab Ltd.)</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai Versus M/s. Polaris Financial Technology Limited (Formerly known as ... Issues:1. Revenue's appeal seeking reversal of Tribunal's order on ground raised by assessee.2. Consideration of decision of jurisdictional High Court in Tribunal's order.3. Maintainability of Miscellaneous Petition filed by Revenue.Analysis:1. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Petitions to reverse the Tribunal's order on a ground raised by the assessee, contending that the Tribunal overlooked the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The Departmental Representative relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. to support the argument that such oversight constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal decided to recall the order for the limited purpose of addressing the issue raised in the ground.2. The Departmental Representative pointed out that the Tribunal did not consider the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Galaxy Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, which led to a decision contrary to the High Court's ruling. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and decided to recall the order for the assessment year 2008-09 to reexamine the issue in light of the High Court's decision. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling to support the decision to rectify the oversight.3. Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal found that the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 had been dismissed as infructuous without delving into the merits of the raised grounds. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue for that assessment year was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. However, for the assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal decided to recall the order and restore the appeal to address the overlooked issue in accordance with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 and allowed the petition for the assessment year 2008-09, directing a reexamination of the issue raised in the ground for that year.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
