2015 (3) TMI 711

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of this group of appeals, the appellant-Revenue seeks to challenge the order of the learned ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Dated : 28.06.2005, passed in (1) ITA No.685/Rjt/2003 for the A.Y. 1997-98, (2) ITA No.686/Rjt/2003 for the A.Y. 1998-99, (3) ITA No.687/Rjt/2003 for the A.Y. 1999-00 as well as the order of the Tribunal in (4) ITA No.429/Rjt/2007, Dated : 06.11.2008, for the A.Y. 2001-02, (5) ITA No.1147/Rjt/2004, Dated : 22.11.2005, for the A.Y. 1997-98 and (6) ITA No.1584/Rjt/2005, Dated : 28.02.2006, for the A.Y. 2000-01. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee filed it return of income for the different assessment years, as stated above. Later on, the concerned AOs examined the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions of the Act, the Tribunal ought to have held that the concerned AOs were justified in denying exemption on the entire amount for the relevant assessment years. He, further, submitted that the Tribunal gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that exemption can be denied only to the extent of investment contravening the provisions of section 11(5) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that the appeals be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the respondent-assessee, submitted that the Tribunal has committed no error, while appreciating the provisions of Section 11(5) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. In support of his submission, Mr. Patel stated that the issues involved in these matters are no more res integra and he re....