2012 (6) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... These two income-tax appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax, 1961 preferred by the Revenue against the different orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur for different assessment years but in relation to the same assessee and involving identical questions of law, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the present case?" 3. The learned counsel for the parties have frankly pointed out that in relation to the same assessee, the above questions had been the subject of consideration in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 79/2005, decided on 25.04.2008; and have placed for perusal the copy of the said judgment dated 25.04.2008. 4. In the said judgment dated 25.04.2008, a co-ordinate Bench of this Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded as to whether in such circumstances, the questioned receipts would be revenue receipts or capital asset. The relevant operative part of the judgment reads as under:- "13. In that view of the matter, what we are required to consider is, as to whether the Tribunal was legally justified in not applying the judgment rendered in Tuticorin's case (supra), or that, the Tribunal was justified in ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l would have adopted the other line of reasoning, following the judgment in Tuticorin's case (supra). 14. Therefore, when there are two sets of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, proceeding on different lines of reasonings, and both stand on their own logical footing, and in that event, if the learned Tribunal has accepted one line of reasoning, supported by one set of judgments, it cannot be ....