2017 (3) TMI 984

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Thus, these five appeals. 2. The Revenue urges the following identical question of law for our consideration : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act when the requisite conditions as stipulated in clauses (b) and (c) of this section were not satisfied? 3. The question as proposed subsumes within it two issues as under: (i) Does the respondent assessee satisfy the condition (b) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act which requires the project claiming the deduction to be on size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre; and (ii) Does responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issue no.(i) now stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1452 of 2010 and 1453 of 2010 dated 1st March, 2011(surpa). (d) In fact, in these very proceedings before the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer had filed a remand report wherein he has stated that the issue raised in respect of the condition (b) in Section 80IB(10) of the Act stands concluded against the Revenue by order in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1452 of 2010 and 1453 of 2010 dated 1st March, 2011 (supra). However, the remand report does indicate that the Revenue has not accepted the decision of this Court and an SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court. (e) The respondent assessee thereafter pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....39;s submissions unwarranted. It is not even the Revenue's case before us that an application for recall of orders passed by the Apex Court in the respondent assessee's case has been made and if so, its result. We would have expected Counsel to be mindful of the law of precedents while making submissions. We believe if the above were kept in mind, the Counsel would not have persisted (even after we pointed out to him the law of precedents) almost for an hour trying to convince us to disregard the orders of coordinate bench and the Apex Court and consider the issues afresh. We would expect a fairer approach from the State. We would expect the Counsel to appreciate the value of time in the context of the large number of pending matter....