2008 (2) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals as the point involved is the same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 4485 of 2007. 2. Assessee-respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee' filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1992-93 declaring income of Rs. 4,30,06,580 by showing its business as investment and finance, which was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 18th Jan., 1996 on the same income. Along with the return the assessee claimed refund amounting to Rs. 29,16,660 on the basis of credit of deemed TDS on dividend received from a Malaysian company i.e. Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD, Malaysia. The AO raised a demand of Rs. 1,07,370 after rejecting the credit claimed by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was not raised by the assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(A) but was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and that too in an appeal filed by the Department? 4. Having dismissed the cross objection filed by the assessee, whether the Tribunal was justified in then proceeding to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merits in their favour." 5. On question No. 1. the High Court, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm & Ors. (1994) 120 CTR (Mad) 427 : (1994) 208 ITR 400 (Mad) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Dead) Through LRs (2004) 189 CTR (SC) 193 : (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC), held that the Tribunal was ju....