{"id":1307,"date":"2010-01-14T12:59:49","date_gmt":"2010-01-14T07:29:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=1307"},"modified":"2010-01-14T12:59:49","modified_gmt":"2010-01-14T07:29:49","slug":"shivshahi-punarvasan-prakalp-vs-uoi-bombay-high-court-state-govt-psus-do-not-need-cod-approval","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/shivshahi-punarvasan-prakalp-vs-uoi-bombay-high-court-state-govt-psus-do-not-need-cod-approval\/","title":{"rendered":"Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=139\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=139&varname2=shivshahi_punarvasan_state_govt_psu_cod.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (shivshahi_punarvasan_state_govt_psu_cod.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>State Govt. PSUs do not need COD approval<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee is a State Govt. undertaking. Its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the approval of the Committee on Disputes (\u201cCOD\u201d) had not been obtained. In a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue stated that <strong>it was not the contention of the revenue that COD approval was required for appeals before the Tribunal in Income-tax matters<\/strong>. It was pointed out that though in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/ongc_cidco_cod.pdf\">ONGC vs. CIDCO<\/a><\/strong> 2007 (7) SCC 39, the Supreme Court had directed the formation of a Committee to sort out differences between the Central Government and State Government entities, and a Committee would be constituted by the UOI to look into disputes on a case to case, <strong>this was not necessary in income-tax matters<\/strong>. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was set-aside for a decision on the merits.<\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nNote: The same view has been taken in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/gujarat-mineral-development-corp-vs-itat-gujarat-high-court\">Gujarat Mineral Development Corp vs. ITAT<\/a><\/strong> 25 DTR 241 (Guj) albeit without noticing <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/ongc_cidco_cod.pdf\">ONGC vs. CIDCO<\/a><\/strong>. See Also: <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/maharashtra-state-warehousing-vs-dcit-itat-pune\">Maharashtra State Warehousing Corpn<\/a><\/strong> 22 DTR 531 (Pune) (Trib.)\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee is a State Govt. undertaking. Its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the approval of the Committee on Disputes (\u201cCOD\u201d) had not been obtained. In a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue stated that <strong>it was not the contention of the revenue that COD approval was required for appeals before the Tribunal in Income-tax matters<\/strong>. It was pointed out that though in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/ongc_cidco_cod.pdf\">ONGC vs. CIDCO<\/a><\/strong> 2007 (7) SCC 39, the Supreme Court had directed the formation of a Committee to sort out differences between the Central Government and State Government entities, and a Committee would be constituted by the UOI to look into disputes on a case to case, <strong>this was not necessary in income-tax matters<\/strong>. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was set-aside for a decision on the merits.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/shivshahi-punarvasan-prakalp-vs-uoi-bombay-high-court-state-govt-psus-do-not-need-cod-approval\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}