9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue is aggrieved by order dated 14th August, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Kolkata in ITA nos.1989/KOL/2013 and 1010/KOL/2013 respectively pertaining to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Mr. Dudhoria, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the Revenue and pressed the appeal for admission on only one of the suggested substantial questions of law as is set o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same. The Assessing Officer invoked section 14A of the Act and applying Rule 8D(2)(ii)worked out the expenditure at Rs. 5,85,519. He relied on a judgment of this court of Dhanuka & Sons Vs.CIT reported in (2011) 12 taxmann.com 227 (Cal) to submit that the object of section 14A is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise to any substantial question of law. He also relied on the case of CIT Vs. Crish Park Vincom Ltd. decided by a Bench of this court to which one of us was a party (Arindam Sinha,J.) and reported in (2015) 371 ITR 15 (Cal) wherein it was held that whether or not the expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning the exempt income has been properly explained is essentially a question of fact. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as follows:- "We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that now the revenue could not establish that the investments made in shares giving exempted income is out of borrowed funds on which interest is paid by assessee. There is no nexus whatsoever. On specific query Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert that the assessee has made in investment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
