9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no substantial question of law. - 221 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2010 - DIPAK MISRA C. J. and MANMOHAN J. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. MANMOHAN J. -CM No. 3201 of 2010. 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. I.T.A. No. 221 of 2010 3. The present appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1961") challenging the order dated November 7, 2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal") in I. T. A. No. 2587/Del/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04. 4. By way of present appeal, the following questions of law have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 has held as under (page 387) : "The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal [vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad [1981] 128 ITR 388 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and CIT v. Cellulose Pro- ducts of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no reason to doubt the bona fides of the assessee company in adopting the new method. As such, considering all the facts of the case, we hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the revised claim of the assessee for higher deduction under section 10B on the basis of new method of allocation of interest expenditure incurred at HO level to different units and upholding the same on this issue, we dismiss ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal." 9. From the above, it is apparent that the assessee has in a bona fide manner adopted a more scientific basis for distribution of common expenses and accordingly, the Revenue cannot raise a grievance on this score. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
