2013 (6) TMI 844 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) for assessment year 2001-02 raises questions regarding allocation of expenditure u/s. 14A, disallowance of expenditure on community development, recomputation of deduction u/s. 80IA, set off of deduction u/s. 80IA against gross total income, and applicability of Section 115JB of the Act.

Allocation of Expenditure u/s. 14A:
The Tribunal's decision in the respondent's own case for assessment year 1999-2000 concluded against the revenue, and the Counsel for the revenue failed to challenge the Tribunal's orders for the relevant years. Hence, the Court declined to entertain questions related to the allocation of expenditure u/s. 14A.

Disallowance of Expenditure on Community Development:
Similar to the previous issue, the Tribunal's decision in the respondent's favor for assessment year 1999-2000 was cited, and the Counsel for the revenue could not provide any valid reason to challenge the Tribunal's conclusion. Therefore, the Court did not entertain the question regarding the disallowance of expenditure on community development.

Recomputation of Deduction u/s. 80IA:
The Tribunal's order for assessment year 2000-01 favored the respondent, and the revenue did not challenge this decision. The Court, after considering the lack of response from the revenue department and the absence of any appeal notices, declined to entertain the question related to the recomputation of deduction u/s. 80IA.

Set Off of Deduction u/s. 80IA:
The issue was found to be covered by previous judgments of the Court in other cases, and as the matter was concluded in favor of the respondent, the Court did not entertain the question regarding the set off of deduction u/s. 80IA against gross total income.

Applicability of Section 115JB:
The appeal was admitted only in respect of the question concerning the applicability of Section 115JB of the Act. The Court decided to hear this issue along with other pending appeals on a similar question of law, indicating that further deliberation is required on this specific matter.