TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' in ITA No. 104/Chandi/2005 for the assessment year 1998-99 and order dated 23.6.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' in M.A. No. 152/Chd./2008. ITA No. 65 of 2009 has arisen out of order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' in ITA No. 105/Chandi/2005 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and order dated 23.6.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' in M.A. No. 153/Chd./2008. The ITAT had decided Income Tax Appeals No. 104 and 105 alongwith cross appeals No. 150 and 151 by common order dated 31.3.2008, similarly ITAT has decided M.A. Nos. 152 and 153/Chd./2008 by common order dated 23.6.2009. The Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal. 5. The CIT (A) held that the copy of minutes of the Pricing Committee related to the minutes dated 12.6.1991 and not for the relevant years. The assessee had not provided any interest relating to audit paras settled earlier upto the assessment year 1997-98. CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction to the assessee after confirmation from Forest Department. The grievance of the assessee in the appeal before the Tribunal was that the decision of CIT (A) is in violation of earlier order of the Tribunal where he was directed to decide the issue himself. The order of the CIT (A) was also in violation of amended Section 250 which does not authorize CIT (A) to set-aside the relevant orders. 6. The stand of the revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly paid. The CIT(A) shall keep in view the directions given in the impugned order. 9. The Tribunal in the appeals of the revenue in the impugned order has held that direction of CIT (A) to allow the deduction to the assessee after verification is not a speaking order. The CIT (A) should have spelled out the evidence that was produced before him. The Tribunal has ultimately held that in any case the order of CIT (A) has been set-aside to pass speaking order. The Tribunal has clarified that for the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the only issue decided by the CIT (A) was relating to the provision for interest and not in respect of any claim on account of royalty payable on the basis of audit paras. In these circumstances, it was held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involves a substantial question of law. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.3.2008 has remanded the case to CIT(A) with the observation that CIT(A) for the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 had only decided the issue relating to the provision for interest and not in respect of any claim on account of royalty payable on the basis of audit paras. The Tribunal has thus made very clear in the order dated 31.3.2008 that the said order is confined to the claim of interest with reference to unpaid royalty settled on the basis of audit paras. It is thus clear from the order dated 31.3.2008 that only limited issue was remitted by the Tribunal to CIT(A) and not the whole of the case. The assessee has been given liberty to adduce evidence. The Tribu....