9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd., [2009 (3) TMI 587 - Gujarat High Court] wherein it has been held that merely because the deed was registered, the transaction would not assume a different character - the lease rent was very nominal and by obtaining the land on lease, the capital structure of the assessee did not undergo any change - the assessee only acquired a facility to carry on business profitably by paying nominal lease rent and that the lease rent paid by the assessee to GIDC was allowable as revenue expenditure – Decided in favour of assessee. Allowability of deduction u/s 80M – Deduction of management expenses from gross dividend received – Expenses incurred by assessee or not – Held that:- However, the assessee has not show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment of Section 234A/B – Decided in favour of assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 344 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR.K.J.THAKER, JJ. MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. While admitting the appeal on 24.12.2001, the following questions of law were formulated for our determination; (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding that the alleged income from Advance License Benefit Receivable ( ALBR for short) is taxable in the year under consideration even though the said income has accrued to the appellant in the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .11.1996. Vide order dated 24.03.1999, the A.O assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 19,84,30,202/. The assessee challenged the said order by filing appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 15.03.2000. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 13.03.2002, partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Insofar as questions no.(i) (ii) are concerned, the issues are already concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Excel Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court in the case of CIT v. United General Trust Ltd., 200 ITR 488, has held that relief u/s.80M must be allowed on net dividend after deducting proportionate management expenditure. Similarly, in the case of Distributor, Vadodara Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 156 ITR 120, the Apex Court held that relief u/s.80M was not available on gross amount of dividend without deduction of proportionate management expenditure. Accordingly, question no.(iv) is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. Insofar as question no.(v) is concerned, the issue is already concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax, [2012] 343 ITR 89 (SC) wherein, it has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
