9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to declare a circular ultra vires. In our considered view, the case does not fall in the exception clause. The appeal is dismissed. The substantial questions claimed are kept open. - ITA No. 283 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2020 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant ORDER AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. The revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Following substantial questions of law have been claimed: 1. Whether on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse stating that there is no exempt income during the year whereas in the return of income, the assessee has claimed total exempt income of ₹ 24,45,132/-, hence the ratio of case of M/s Lakhani Marketing INC ITA No. 970/2008 is not applicable to the case of the assessee? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not upholding disallowance of ₹ 11,82,978/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act on the ground that disallowance made cannot exceed exempt income without appreciating the fact that there is no such restriction stipulated either in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act or Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome, when Supreme Court has upheld the principles of apportionment and department is in SLP on the same issue in the cases of Moderate Leasing and Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No. 102 of 2018, A. Y. 2009-10 and Matrix Cellullar Service (P) Ltd. In ITA No. 484 of 2017 and Nilgiri Infrastructure Development Ltd. In ITA No. 135 of 2016 and Instant Holding Ltd. in ITA No. 2168 of 2011 and SLP has also been approved against the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Ltd. in ITA No. 322/2016? (x) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and fact in following the decision of Hon'ble High Courts whose facts wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts are that the assessment year involved is 2013- 14. The income tax return was filed claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer treated the loan received from M/s Acme Builders Private Limited as deemed dividends and made additions under the head income from other sources . Further disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was also made vide order dated 29.1.2016. The first appeal filed was dismissed on 14.12.2016. The Tribunal allowed the appeal vide order dated 29.10.2018, hence the present appeal of the revenue. In the appeal, it is pleaded that the tax effect is ₹ 46,91,541/-, however it is argued that the case falls under the exception carved out in para 10(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
