9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appeals without considering the following questions, which, according to us, did arise for consideration. They are formulated as under: "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure for earning dividend income cannot be estimated and therefore, cannot be allowed while computing book profits and also under the normal provisions of the Income tax Act. (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in disallowing u/s 43B of the Income tax Act the unpaid custom duty and excise duty included ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Appeal No.1299 of 2008 DATE : 15th April, 2009. The Commissioner of Income Tax-3,Mumbai Versus M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd. Represented By: Mr.Vimal Gupta , Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistri with P.C. Tripathi Mr. Raj Darak , Advocate for the Respondents. P.C.: 1. Revenue is in appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon ble Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure for earning dividend income cannot be estimated and therefore cannot be allowed while computing book profits and also under the normal provisions of the Income-Tax Act. (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncurred to keep track of receipt and accruals of dividend income and accordingly, it is not possible to accept that no expenditure has been incurred out of dividend income. Accordingly, it held that expenses of Rs.20 lakhs is sufficient to meet expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal observed that "The assessee has earned dividend income only from three companies. There is no fact of having incurred any expenditure for the purpose of earning the dividend income. The disallowance in our view is misconceived and the same is deleted in the light of the same order." In our opinion, this is purely a finding of fact and, therefore, question (A) as framed would not arise. 3. So far as Question (C) is concerned, same is answered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the Tribunal, the Scheme was oriented towards and was subservient to the investment in fixed capital assets. The sale tax incentive was envisaged only as an alternative to the cash disbursement and by its very nature was to be available only after production commenced. Thus, in effect, it was held by the Tribunal that the subsidy in the form of sales tax incentive was not given to the assessee for assisting it in carrying out the business operations. The object of the subsidy was to encourage the setting up of industries in the backward area." . Thus, it can clearly be seen that a finding has been recorded that the object of the subsidy was to encourage the setting up of industries in the backward area by generating employment the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
