On May 20, 1978, the Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on merits.
By the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both the Revenue and the assessee preferred second appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to the extent each one of them was aggrieved.
A writ petition No.4803/79 was filed challenging this order made by the Commissioner.
XVI/11/69 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereinafter referred to as the Board and examine its case on merits.
Against the assessment order of the ITO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by an order made on October 27, 1976 partly allowed the same.
The assessee filed revision petition on May 19, 1977 under Section 264 of the Act to the extent of the grievance projected before the Tribunal earlier.
The learned Single Judge, who companysidered the matter, directed the Commissioner to entertain the revision petition filed by the assessee in terms of Circular No.
Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred by the Commissioner before the Division Bench.
However, on May 9, 1977, the assessee withdrew its appeal before the Tribunal with liberty reserved to it to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner in a revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
For the assessment year 1970 71, the appellant filed its return before the companycerned ITO who by an order made on March 15, 1973 companypleted the assessment by disallowing certain deductions claimed by the appellant on various grounds.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellant before us is M s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., which is a wholly centrally owned Government Company engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes and its parts.
