2013 (2) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Unit, Chennai.   2. In its appeal for assessment year 2003-04, assessee has questioned the reopening made under Section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') when the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act after four years from the end of the assessment year, exclusion of DEPB credit entitlement while computing 80-HHC deduction, not allowing the 80-IA deduction claimed and disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee for MRF Pace Foundation. 3. When the matter came up before us, learned A.R. was fair enough to admit that similar issues stood decided against the assessee in its appeals and cross appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 in I.T.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. Insofar as expenditure incurred on MRF Pace Foundation is concerned, it was held in para 4 of the order of the Tribunal mentioned supra that expenditure incurred for the said Foundation for training individuals in cricket game could not be held as a business activity of the assessee and therefore, the claim for such allowance was not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. 9. Thus, vide earlier order of this Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1374 to 1377/Mds/2010 and I.T.A. Nos. 1676 to 1679/Mds/2010 dated 11.3.2011, all the issues raised by the assessee go against assessee. 10. Now taking up appeal for assessment year 2005-06, there are two issues raised therein. First on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee had not incurred any expenditure for the dividend income of Rs. 33.16 lakhs received by it. Reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles (323 ITR 518). 14. Per contra, learned D.R. submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) had rightly found that the assessee itself has disallowed 2% of exempt income and therefore, it cannot be heard to argue that no expenditure was incurred in relation to the earning of exempt income. Therefore, according to him, the decision of ld. CIT(Appeals) that ½% of investment amount yielding exempt income could be considered for disallowance was justified. 15. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ....