9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that of the Tribunal, according to the Revenue, raise following three questions and which are termed as substantial questions of law: 5.1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that the loss incurred on the sale of shares of Camelot a wholly owned subsidiary was a business loss when the investment made in the latter was not a business asset, but investment for obtaining an enduring benefit. 5.2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the cessation of sales tax liability not liable to be brought to tax u/s 41(1)? (5.3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in ordering the deletion of interest l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,50,00,000. The Assessee had made investment in 100% owned subsidiary Camelot as claimed for purely business reasons. The stand of the Assessee that the investment was made because and for the purposes of business, the loss on sale of such investment is required to be treated as business loss. The Assessee placed reliance, inter alia, on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patnaik & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 161 ITR 365 and of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd., 119 ITR 360. The alternate argument and which was canvassed without prejudice need not detain us. 7. The Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently found that the Camelot was fully owned subsidiary of the Assessee and engaged in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gments and allowed the Appeal. He concluded that the loss of Rs. 5.50 crores is a business loss in the hands of the Assessee. He set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. The Revenue carried the matter in Appeal and the Tribunal has dealt with this issue extensively. In para 7 of its order, the Tribunal has upheld the conclusion of the Commissioner and by giving additional reason. 9. Upon perusal of this material, we are unable to agree with Mr.Pinto that question 5.1 reproduced above is a substantial question of law. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances and the nature of the investment so also being for commercial expediency, the view taken by the Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently cannot be termed as perverse. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
