2010 (2) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of diverted profits to Abir Chemicals Limited?" 2. Tax Appeal Nos. 115 to 117 of 2010 are in relation to the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, whereas Tax Appeal No. 1478 of 2008 is in relation to the assessment year 1998-99. 3. The Tribunal while passing the order for assessment year 1998-99 on 8.6.2007 relied upon its own order in earlier years, i.e. assessment year 1995-96 to 1997-98 passed on 18.8.2006. The Revenue has filed the Appeal for assessent year 1998-99 on or about 25.3.2008 and since the order for earlier years was not received by the Revenue, the Appeal for the said....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cer. By showing less purchase price for chemicals which was ultimately sold to the ACL, the assessee has shown a higher profit, since otherwise, the profit earned by the assessee would have been less to that extent. He has come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not established that the sale transactions of the appellant were sham one or that the appellant had sold the goods at a concessional rate to the benefit of ACL. He further observed that if at all any action was to be taken, it could be in the case of the ACL, but, there the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition because ACL is showing more profit. The CIT(A) has therefore held that no case is made out for diversion of profit. 6. Being aggrieved by the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and unabsorbed depreciation. He further submitted that the Tribunal once having held that on the basis of array of facts complied by the Assessing Officer, the arrangement of distribution of profits amongst the sister concern appears to be a contrivance, and which charge could not be effectively rebutted by the assessee, the Tribunal still confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Appeals filed by the Revenue. He has therefore submitted that the question of law proposed by the Revenue in all these Appeals certainly requires consideration by this Court and the same has to be formulated for determination and consideration of this Court. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing fo....