Itxa/1185/2012 Of Kotak Securities Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax 4(3),Mumbai

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1185 OF 2012 Kotak Securities Ltd. ..Appellant. V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-4(3), Mumbai ..Respondent.Mr.F.V. Irani with Mr. P.C.Tripathi i/b. A.K. Jasani for the appellant. Mr.A.R. Malhotra with Mr. N.A. Kazi for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2014 P.C. :- 1.When this appeal was argued for admission, Mr.Irani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-assessee in support of the case, invited our attention to the impugned order dated 21[st] May, 2012 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and submitted that the substantial questions of law are formulated in this appeal and are appearing on pages 13 & 14 of the paper-book, namely, questions 1, 2 & 3(a). In that regard, Mr.Irani has fairly brought to our notice that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court delivered on 21[st] October, 2011 in Income Tax appeal No.3111 of 2009. 2.Mr.Irani further clearly concedes that this judgment is delivered in the case of the same assessee M/s.Kotak Securities Limited. However, inviting our attention to para 32 of this judgment at internal page 18, Mr. Irani submits that on alternate argument and which is formulated on page 14 of the paper-book 3 (b) is concerned, an application for rectification of mistake was preferred by the appellant-assessee before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has entertained and granted that accordingly. The appeal before the Tribunal for this limited purpose will be re-heard some time in October, 2014. In view thereof, Mr. Irani has instructions not to press the question 3(b). 3.In the light of the above concession and the findings recorded, the substantive issue is answered against the assessee by the judgment of this Court in the assessee's own case. Thus, the appeal is dismissed but with a clarification that it would be open for the appellant-assessee to raise all contentions with regard to the alternate argument and question formulated as 3(b). We equally keep the contentions of the revenue open in that behalf. In view of the above, the question No.4 at page 15 need not be considered as it does not survive. (A.K. MENON, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)