TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SUGLA J. -This is an application by the Department under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions sought to be raised are : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was (a) justified in taking the view that the authorities relied upon by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order under section 154 are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rate of 26% of the dividend income. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by his order dated January 31, 1979, following our court's judgment in the case of New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 348, held that deduction under section 80M was required to be allowed on the basis of the gross dividend income and not the net dividend income as computed by the Income-tax Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e gross dividend income as was done by the Tribunal in some other cases. Against the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rectifying his appellate order was barred by limitation in view of section 154(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Alternatively, the contention was that, even on merits,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by him. The order is, thus, barred by limitation. The argument that, in case the assessee's applications for rectification are not disposed of by the departmental authorities within four years, the courts have held that the orders rectifying the orders passed earlier should be passed if the applications were filed within four years has no application in this case inasmuch as the principle behind ....