TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the incentive amount of Rs.14,71,545/- for the assessment year 1988-89 was liable to tax as a revenue receipt and was not on capital account outside the purview of taxation? (ii) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the scheme of Government of Gujarat, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the subsidy amounting to Rs.17,28,843/- and Rs.12,65,490/- for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively was liable to tax as a revenue receipt and was not on capital account outside the purview of taxation? (iii) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 43, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re company M/s. Polypropylene India Ltd. written off in the appellant's accounts for the assessment year 1995-96 and its purported findings that the expenditure was capital in nature not incidental to the running of the appellant's business and disallowing the claim are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? (vii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the disallowance of a sum of Rs.13,42,739/- out of the interest expenditure incurred by the appellant for the purposes of its business during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1995-96 and its purported findings in that behalf and upholding taxation of the said amount as deemed interest on the advance made to M/s. Polypropylene India Ltd. in the earlier years ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recall all orders passed on 28th of November 2003 and thereafter the Registry was directed to fix the cases for fresh hearing in due course. Thereafter the said appeals came up for fresh hearing. The said appeals were restored and immediately thereafter the assessee/appellant again filed Miscellaneous Applications bearing No.362/Kol/04 to 374/Kol/04 against order dated 11th June, 2004. In subsequent Miscellaneous Applications it was the contention of the appellant that earlier Miscellaneous Applications were not intended to make for recalling of the entire order but for rectification and correction of mistakes which are crept in the order of the Tribunal passed in the above appeal referred to above. Accordingly, order dated 11th June, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be decided first. This Court of course allowed both the learned counsels to advance argument on merit in anticipation if the same is required to be decided after deciding the question of maintainability. We thus first proceed to decide the question of maintainability. From the record it appears that the assessee made applications for rectification of the order dated 28th November, 2003 on certain point and not otherwise. Therefore it is clear that at that point of time the assessee has accepted the decision rendered by the impugned judgment and order on other issues in respect of which no rectification was called for. When the said Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of without rectifying mistake as prayed for, recalling the earlier....