9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in paragraph 8 of the appeal memo because this question does not arise in the present appeal, though it arises in Tax Appeal No. 9/2023. 3. Ms Linhares, however, presses the following two substantial questions of law in support of this appeal: I. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,89,334/- made by way of disallowance of contributions to temple/panchayat and whether the CIT (A) erred by admitting the additional evidence in violation to Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition u/sec. 28(iv) of and whether CIT (A) e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al background in which such contributions were made. This explanation was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the ITAT upheld the Commissioner's view. Accordingly, the first question, as proposed, does not arise in this appeal. 7. In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, again, we are not too sure whether this was a case of admission of any additional evidence. However, even assuming that this was so, the Tribunal has decided the matter based upon the decision of this Court in Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 261 ITR 501. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld this decision in the case of Commissioner V/s. Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1 (SC). 8. This Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the issue of admission or non-admission of additional evidence is quite irrelevant since Section 28(iv) contemplates benefits in some form other than money or cash. Therefore, even if the additional evidence or the new documents allegedly admitted at the appellate stage were to be completely excluded from consideration, there would be no difference, and the Assessee's case would have to be accepted based upon the interpretation of Section 28(iv) in Mahindra and Mahindra (Supra). 10. Accordingly, even the second substantial question of law, as proposed, does not arise or, in any case, would have to be answered against the Revenue. 11. For the above reasons, we decline to admit this appeal. 12. This appeal is accordingly dismissed withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
