9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a contention was not raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Thus, question no.(a) does not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. This issue on merits stand concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) where it has been held that not raising an issue before the original authority would not bar the party from raising the issue before the Appellate Authority. Interest on deposit which the impugned order of the Tribunal holds is chargeable to tax under the head 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' and consequently eligible for deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- When asked, Mr. Pinto fairly states that the issue of classificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ). The impugned order dated 23rd April, 2013 relates to Assessment Year 200506. 2. The AppellantRevenue has urged only the following questions of law for our consideration: (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 10A in respect of interest on fixed deposits and tax refund by holding it to be income under the head 'Profits Gains of Business or Profession' without appreciating that the assessee had itself not made any such claim in its return of income and therefore, such claim was not allowable being contrary to the scheme of the Act as enshrin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clear that such a contention was not raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Thus, question no.(a) does not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. (ii) In any view of the matter, this issue on merits stand concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 where it has been held that not raising an issue before the original authority would not bar the party from raising the issue before the Appellate Authority. (iii) In the above view, question no.(a) as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Regarding Question no.(b) (i) So far as question no.(b) is concerned, the issue relates to interest on deposit which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
