9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew it is not open for the Revenue to urge this issue before us when the same was not urged before the Tribunal leading to the impugned order of the Tribunal. Question no.1 as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law National loss arising from revaluation of unmatured forward exchange contract - Allowable deduction - no accrual as the forward contract was not settled and without appreciating the true nature of the transaction - Held that:- Issue stands covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Bank of India reported in [1995 (11) TMI 78 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Appeal admitted on the substantial questions of law at question nos. (2), ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring deposits and hence expenditure was attributable to the earning of tax exempt income and without appreciating that such expenditure can be disallowed as per Section 14A of the Income Tax Act? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in allowing payment of ₹ 9.14 crores towards all India Risk Insurance to Deutsche Asia Pacific under Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 instead of it being allowed under Section 44C of the I.T. Act? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the national loss arising from revaluation of unmatured forward exchange contract is allowable as deduction without appreciating that there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondentassessee who filed an appeal on the above before the Tribunal. The grievance being that the expenditure incurred on Information Technology to the extent of ₹ 14.99 crores cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(i) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source. (d) It is clear that the the Revenue was not aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act and also with the direction of the CIT(A) that the aforesaid payment would not be allowed as a deduction under Section 44C of the Act, therefore in the above view it is not open for the Revenue to urge this issue before us when the same was not urged before the Tribunal leading to the impugned order of the Tribunal. (e) Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
