9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relying on the conclusion in case of this very assessee in earlier assessment year, the Tribunal further noted that during the year under consideration, no fresh investments were made by the assessee except for a small investment of ₹ 2.52 lakhs. Such being the fact, we do not see any error in the view of the Tribunal. This question is therefore not entertained. Deduction disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - whether should be allowed u/s 57(iii) of the I.T. Act when the primary motive of the assessee company is not earning income from other source? - Held that:- As he assessee had objected to the Revenue's proposal for disallowance of expenditure on the ground that there were sufficient interest free funds available with the assessee from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. it is established that the assessee had no sufficient funds and has borrowed funds fro investment in shares. These borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of investments which cannot be said to be the expenses incurred for the purpose of business? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) being employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI as the same were not deposited within the stipulate time / dates as provided in the respective Act? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed as the profit of the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f expenditure under Section 14A of the Act. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that in addition to relying on the conclusion in case of this very assessee in earlier assessment year, the Tribunal further noted that during the year under consideration, no fresh investments were made by the assessee except for a small investment of ₹ 2.52 lakhs. Such being the fact, we do not see any error in the view of the Tribunal. This question is therefore not entertained. 4. In relation to question nos. (iii) and (iv), we notice that similar questions came up for consideration before this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 2111 of 2012 in case of this very assessee where by order dated 26th February, 2013 while dismissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
