9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this is not a case of any violation of Rule 46A(3), and the first question of law now sought to be raised does not arise in this appeal. Respondent pointed out that the addition was based upon misconstruing the Assessee's case. He pointed out that merely because some contributions had been made to temples, etc., the Assessee had not claimed any exemption under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act. He pointed out that these were routine revenue expenditures incurred by the Assessee after explaining the factual 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. For the Appellants : Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Mr Nishant Thakkar with Mr P. Talaulikar, Ms Linette Rodrigues, Ms Jasmin Amalsadvala and Ms S. Shanmugam, Advocates. P.C. : 1. Heard Ms Susan Linhares for the appellant and Mr Thakkar, who appears along with Mr P. Talaulikar and Ms Linette Rodrigues for the respondent. 2. Ms Linhares, at the outset, submits that she is not pressing the substantial question of law (III) raised 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case of any violation of Rule 46A(3), and the first question of law now sought to be raised does not arise in this appeal. 6. Besides, Mr Thakkar pointed out that the addition was based upon misconstruing the Assessee's case. He pointed out that merely because some contributions had been made to temples, etc., the Assessee had not claimed any exemption under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act. He pointed out that these were routine revenue expenditures incurred by the Assessee after explaining the factual 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the form of benefit or perquisite other than in the shape of money, is not satisfied in the present case. Hence, in our view, in no circumstances, it can be said that the amount of can be taxed under the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the IT Act. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that there was no benefit other than in the form of money alleged to be received by the Assessee. Even the case of the Revenue was that the Assessee had accepted certain advances for which no proper explanation was furnished. Therefore, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
