9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of the assessee by the Venture Capital Fund as admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in the Assessment Order. Taking note of the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Japan International Cooperative Agency [ 2016 (2) TMI 882 - ITAT DELHI] the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The correctness of the factual finding recorded by the CIT(A) was tested by the Tribunal as well as noting the provision of Section 10(23FB) and Section 115(U) . After taking note of the factual position, the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus we find there is no Substantial Question of Law arises for consideration in this appeal as the entire matter revolves on factual aspects which was not only endorsed by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Year under consideration ('AY 2008-09') on 30.07.2008, admitting an income of ₹ 3,56,05,420/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed accepting the returned income declared by the assessee. Subsequently the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and completed by order dated 31.01.2014, assessing a total income at ₹ 5,50,10,269/-. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment pointed out that the assessee received ₹ 1,68,21,005/- as Distribution of income received from ICICI Emerging Sector Fund and there was a discrepancy between the income of ₹ 1,68,21,005/- received and ₹ 2,22,54,099/- and differences amounting to ₹ 54,33,094/- which was added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer to consider the claim of the assessee under Section 10(23FB) read with Section 115U of the Act. 5. The Revenue is before us contenting that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23FB) despite the fact that the STT liability was borne by the Venture Capital Fund and not by the assessee. 6. During the course of argument, Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel vehemently contended that there are certain additional Substantial Questions of Law in the instant case which needs to be considered by this Court, while deciding this appeal. One of such submission is on the ground that Section 115U(1) commences with a non-obstante clause and other provision has been excluded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. Thus it was contended that they converted the said income in the same nature as LTGS - STT which chargeable to tax in the same manner. 8. Further the assessee specifically stated that the STT paid on such transaction is borne by the assessee and was debited to the account of the assessee by the Venture Capital Fund as stated by the Assessing Officer in its order. Therefore, the assessee claimed that they are entitled for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. Further under Section 115U(5) of the Act, the income received by the Venture Capital Fund is taxable on accrual basis, whether distributable or not to the investor and therefore, the exemption under Section 10(38) is not claimed on the distribution as stated by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
