2018 (8) TMI 716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in deleting the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(Va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of Employees' Contributions to ESIC paid by the assessee- Company beyond the due dates under ESIC Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 2000-01 beyond the period of 8 years ?" 3. Regarding Question no.1, (i) Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue arising herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ever (supra) and M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals (supra) although renderred prior to the admission of the appeals of Milton (P) Ltd. (supra) and Confidence Petroleum (I) Ltd. (supra). The decision of this Court in M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) placed reliance upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in General Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, 354 ITR 244 and the CBDT Circular No.14 of 2001 dated 22nd November, 2001. The order also records that nothing was shown by the Revenue as to why the decision of Gujarat High Court should not be followed. Infact, it appears earlier orders in respect of appeals of 2011 admitting this question was pointed out by the Revenue. It may be pointed out that, the same Advocate appeared for the Revenue in M/s. Hindu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect the Revenue to look into this issue at the highest level and ensure that the State takes a consistent view and does not agitate matters on which the Court has already taken a view, without pointing out the earlier order of this Court to the subsequent Bench. It is possible that, there can be certain distinguishing features which may require the next Court to admit the question which has been otherwise dismissed by an earlier order. But this would not be an issue which could arise in the case of pure question of law as raised herein. The decision on the question raised is not related to and/or dependent upon finding upon any particular fact. (vi) We note that the decision of this Court in Milton Private Limited (supra) renderred on 20....