TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere clubbed together for hearing; the tribunal, in fact, having decided all the appeals per a common order; were heard together, and are to being disposed of vide a common, consolidated order. 2. With regard to the assessee's appeals, the assessee's objection is qua its ground no. 2 (for A.Y. 2001-02) and ground no.6 (for A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04) before the tribunal. The same has been decided by the it vide para 3 of the impugned order by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) with a direction to decide afresh in light of the decision by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals [2010] 328 ITR 451 (Bom). The assessee has m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same stands decided by the tribunal vide para 9 of its impugned order by following the decision by its Special Bench in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products (P.) Ltd. [2009] 119 ITD 107 (Del.) (SB) as well as by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2010] 323 ITR 97 (Bom). It is claimed that the decision by the Special Bench has since been reversed by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court vide its judgment in Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 42 (Bom) and, as such, the impugned order bears a mistake rectifiable u/s.254(2). 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The decision by the Special Bench in the case of Hindustan Mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard the parties, and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) had even as clarified by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) during hearing, while considering the DEPB benefit as being covered u/s.28(iiid), held the advance license and DFRC benefit as falling u/s.28(iiib) (refer para 10.2 of his separate order for A.Ys. 2002- 03 and 2003-04). In doing so, he had considered and followed the decisions by the tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Syntax Ltd. (1999) 63 TTJ (Ahd) 409 and P & G Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2005] 93 ITD 138 (Del.). Before the tribunal, however, it was the common contention of both the parties, that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (supra), lea....