TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate, for the Respondent. ORDER M.M. KUMAR, J. This is revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'), against order dated 3.11.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal), in I.T.A. No. 617/Chandi/2000, in respect of assessment year 1991-92. The revenue has claimed that the follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance. After hearing learned counsel it has emerged that second question stands already answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula v. M/s Haryana Warehousing Corporation (I.T.A. No. 242 of 2006, decided on 20.4.2007), by rejecting the submission of the revenue. The Division Bench observed as under:- "Section 210 of the Act provides for payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome. The exemption was granted on the basis of Allahabad High Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, (1992) 195 I.T.R. 273 (All.). As no other decision was brought to the notice, therefore, the Revenue accepted the said decision. The assessee acted bonafide in conformity with the decision of the High Court, just because the decision was reversed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court rendered in the case of M/s Haryana Warehousing Corporation (supra). In so far as first question is concerned relating to depreciation, the revenue has filed an appeal against the order dated 17.5.2004, passed by the CIT (A), Panchkula, in respect of the same assessment year. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) by placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the....