Case Law Details
Case Name : M/s. Qmax Test Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2004- 05
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Chennai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
The assessee had categorically stated that the assessee had claimed deduction under the provisions of section 10B for the first time in the assessment year 1995-96. This fact has been admitted by the Revenue in the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee has placed on record the order of the CIT(A) dated 21.10.2005 relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000 at page 10 to 16 of the paper book.
The CIT(A) has given a categoric finding that the assessee has exercised its option to avail tax holiday for a period of five years commencing from assessment year 1995- 96 . Since, the tax holiday has bee...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
The CIT(A)s openly demand and receive favours and there is no machinery to fix them for dishonesty. There is no “intellectual” about their dishonesty. It is naked corruption, under the patronage of the superiors from top to bottom.
Para 15 of the Order does carry a driving message.
Most of the appeals and cases getting piled up in various appellate fora, in my view , owe their origin to intellectual dishonesty,selective interpretation and perhaps over-enthusiasm for targets. Intellectual dishonesty is well-known in the process of legislation as well.( Retrospective amendments to nullify judicial orders are nothing short of intellectual dishonesty).
Thanks TAXGURU for reporting this judgement.
R Balasubramania, Chennai-59.