2014 (11) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt dated 30.03.1998. On appeal being preferred, the learned CIT(A) passed the order dated 28.10.1999. Being aggrieved by the same, appeals were preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. After hearing both the sides, the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, vide order dated 22.05.2001. Hence, this Tax Appeal. 2. When the matter was earlier heard on 08.01.2002, the following order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court; "Heard both the sides. No substantial question of law arises in this matter, because, the question No.1 which is suggested in paragraph 2 of the appeal memo is covered by a decision of this Court in Dy. C.I.T. v. Core Healthcare Ltd. reported in 243 ITR 61 and the question No.2 is covered by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal has based its finding, came up for consideration in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Mills, 243 ITR 56. Identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Incometax Officer, [2014] 46 taxmann.com 419 (Gujarat) and also in an unreported decision rendered in Tax Appeal No.175/2001 decided on 16.08.2001. 6. In Para11 of the judgment rendered in Surat Textile Mills Ltd.'s case (supra), it has been observed as under;               "11. Reverting back to the facts of the case, we may recall that the sole ground on which the Assessing Officer desires to reopen the assessment is that the assessee did not claim depreciation of the c....