9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (TAXES) For The Respondent : ADVS. SRI. JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI. HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI. ISAAC THOMAS AND SRI. V. ABRAHAM MARKOS ORDER Vinod Chandran, J: The reference arises from the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1989-90. The following are the questions of law raised in the reference: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uting the book profits? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law:- i) should not the dividend income amounting to Rs. 1,97,89,440/- be excluded in computing the profits of eligible business under sub-sec.(3) of sec.32AB of the I.T.Act? ii) the entire business of the assessee company including earning dividend income is eligible business or profession within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court by the decision reported in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. C.I.T. [(2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC)]. Question No.2 is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. Bhari Information Tech. Sys.P.Ltd. [(2012) 340 ITR 593 (SC)]. What survives is only consideration of question No.3. 3. The assessee in the previous assessment year on a revaluation of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er MAT. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal found that there is no ground to decline such exemption to the assessee, merely for the fact that the same was not shown in the profit. The deduction which is permissible under the Act could not have been disallowed. We affirm the concurrent findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal on Question No.3 and it stands answered in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
