9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. ORDER P.C.: 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 17th July, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 19992000. 2. Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue urges only the following questions of law for our consideration :" (1) Whether on the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest bearing 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 Rs. 9.14 crores towards all India Risk Insurance to Deutsche Asia Pacific under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loss there in would also be allowed to the assessee rendered on totally different context?" 3. Regarding Question no.(1): (a) The grievance of the Revenue before us as formulated in the question is that the impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the expenditure of Rs. 14.99 crores on Information Technology under Section 37(1) of the Act. This without having considered the restriction unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent of Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties that the 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 218 ITR 371. (b) In the above view, question no.4 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. The Appeal admitted on the substantial questions of law at question nos. (2), (3) and ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
