TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue has filed an appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 6th June, 2012, which is pronounced in two Income Tax Appeal Nos. 5283/Mum/2011 and 5354/Mum/2011. The appeals of the Revenue and the assessee pertain to assessment year 2008-09. Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing in support of this appeal submits that the questions at page 4 of the paper-book are substantial questions of law and would a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngh submits that even though this view of the Assessing Officer was not accepted by the Commissioner, yet, the Tribunal did not express any opinion on the Commissioner's conclusions. Therefore, this question and as proposed at page 4 would arise and it is a substantial question of law. 5. We are unable to agree with Mr. Tejveer Singh and for more than one reason. The Commissioner has found th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment year 2008-09. If this was the sum paid and namely Rs. 42,44,780/- during the year under consideration, then, the deduction should be in this sum. The Commissioner found that the approach of the Assessing Officer was entirely incorrect inasmuch as the deduction pertained to assessment year 2007-08 and was claimed on payment basis. The relevant claim was filed because of the amendment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse adopted by the assessee was permissible. 6. We do not think that any substantial question of law arises from such a possible view and which is taken in the backdrop of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The first question is, therefore, not a substantial question of law. 7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, it is fairly conceded that the two judgments, one rendered by the Hon&#....