TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 1986-87. The assessee in this case engaged in the business of leasing and it claimed extra-shift allowance on the machinery leased out on the basis of the certificates issued by the lessees for the number of days the machinery worked on extra shift. The Assessing Officer, during the course of the assessment proceedings, examined and allowed the claim of the assessee for extra-shift allowance, by his order, dated March 23, 1989, passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short). The Commissioner of Income-tax invoked his revisional power under section 263 of the Act and held that on the basis of the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Shri Leasing and Indu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee sought a reference under section 256(1) of the Act requesting the Tribunal to refer to this court the following questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to withdraw the extra-shift allowance allowed by him as erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled for the claim for extr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en on appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 98. He, therefore, submitted that since the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, this court is bound by the said judgment of the Supreme Court and the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee is not entitled to extra-shift allowance is not sustainable in law. Mr. K. Subramaniam, learned senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, on the other hand, submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court proceeds on the concession made by learned counsel for the Revenue appeared before the Supreme Court and it was a wrong concession. ....