9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the assessee. Thus find no error of jurisdiction much less of law that would enable us to hold in favour of the revenue or to hold that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is perverse or arbitrary. - Decided against the revenue. Dis allowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Alleged interest received by the assessee under Section 36(I) (iii) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has by a sleigh of hand made an attempt to place this income under Section 14A of the Act. Admittedly the investment was made in the year 1996 and though the assessee may have received interest and dividend at one stage but for the last over a decade M/s HMGV is before BIFR and has not been paying any interest to the assessee. The investment as is apparent from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place in the succeeding years. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in the law in granting relief of ₹ 42,77,213/- to the assessee on commission paid on domestic sales. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT has wrongly held that the Assessing Officer could not interfere with rates of commission paid by the assessee company even if in the light of material available on record these rates are unreasonable and excessive and the assessee could not prove before the A.O. that these payments were actually made. (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in the law in not appreciating that the provision of Section 14A are applicable irrespective of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividend so received falls within the ambit of Section 14-A of the Act and thus, was rightly computed as income of the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that as this investment was part of business of the assessee and was made as a measure of business expediency, it does not fall within Section 14A of the Act. We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order as well as orders passed by the assessing officer etc., but are not inclined to hold that the substantial questions of law should be answered in favour of the revenue. Admittedly, the assessee had taken a positive stand that he had paid commission for sourcing of raw material etc. The Assessing Officer, however, did not carry o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said advances. The said investment was made for business purposes i.e. for the purchase of raw material from the said concern. However, as the said concern was in financial constraint, the application was made before the BIFR by the said concern and thereafter, no interest was being charged by the assessee on the said advances. Admittedly, the said investment was not made during the year under consideration, as is apparent from the fact that the issue of disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in relation to the said advance, arose before the Tribunal in assessment year 2006-04 and thereafter. IN the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that no disallowance is warranted under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
