9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's subsidiary company has started manufacturing - Held that:- The business of the respondent- assessee was of financing, investing, sourcing, operating, green or clean technological products and services had commenced. Therefore, consequently, allowed the claim made for depreciation and expenses to deter mine business profits. The above finding of the Tribunal that the business of the respondent had commenced is not challenged before us by the Revenue. It needs no emphasis that setting up a business or commencement of business cannot vary dependent upon the claim being made, i.e., for expenses it has commenced and for income it has not commenced. Therefore it is not open to the Revenue to contend that the business was not set up/commenced f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that an amount of ₹ 490 per share received by the respondent-assessee constituted share premium of the assessee company ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in disagreeing with invocation of section 68 of the Act to tax share premium ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that because its subsidiary company has started manufacturing and therefore interest income from fixed deposit is to be charged as business income ? 3. Regarding question No. (ii) : (a) Before the Tribunal, the Revenue raised a new plea, viz., that the so cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself holds that share premium of ₹ 490 per share defies all commercial prudence. Therefore it has to be considered to be cash credit. We find that the Tribunal has examined the case of the Revenue on the parameters of section 68 of the Act and found on facts that it is not so hit. Therefore, section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The Revenue has not been able to show in any manner the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse in any manner. (d) Thus, question No. (ii) as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law and thus not entertained. 4. Regarding question No. (iii) : (a) During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent had earned interest income on fix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on account of non commencement of business. However the same has been reversed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It has taken a view that the business of the respondent- assessee was of financing, investing, sourcing, operating, green or clean technological products and services had commenced. Therefore, consequently, allowed the claim made for depreciation and expenses to deter mine business profits. The above finding of the Tribunal that the business of the respondent had commenced is not challenged before us by the Revenue. It needs no emphasis that setting up a business or commencement of business cannot vary dependent upon the claim being made, i.e., for expenses it has commenced and for income it has not commenced. Therefore i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
