2018 (8) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oth the Appeals. Mr. Arvind Pinto, for the Respondent in both the Appeals. P.C: These two Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge the order dated 30th June, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order dated 30th June, 2010 disposes of the Appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2 Both these App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Hindustan Unilever Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 73. The aforesaid decision has been followed by this Court in Revenue's appeal on an identical question in CIT v/s. M/s. Arch Fine Chemicals (P) Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No.1037 of 2014) dismissed on 6th December, 2016, CIT v/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal Nos. 134, 135, 136, 140, 141 and 148 of 2016) a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd., (supra) finally disposes of the Appeal, by relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in DCIT v/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., 354 ITR 244 and the Circular dated 22nd November, 2001 issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes. Thus, the order admitting an Appeal, cannot be considered similar to a speaking order which has finally disposed of the Appeal. At the time of admission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilever Ltd., (supra). 8. We are informed that the Revenue has filed an SLP to the Apex Court, challenging the order of this Court in M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., (supra). However, mere filing of an SLP would not by itself make the decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd., (supra) not binding. Needless to state that in case the Revenue is aggrieved by this order, it is always open to challenge the s....