TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Mr. R. K. Chowdhury appeared for the appellant and prayed for liberty to serve which was granted. On 6th February, 2015, after service, the matter appeared when the matter was fixed by consent of the parties for hearing after two weeks. The matter is in the list for some time. Everytime, the matter was called on, the learned advocate for the respondent was found to be present but the learned advocate for the appellant was not present. In the circumstances, learned advocate for the respondent was requested to give a notice to the learned advocate for the appellant. Such notice was given. A duly receipted photocopy of such notice has been put on record by Mr. Bajoria, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. Today, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss so as to eligible for the deduction under Section 36(1)(III) of the said Act? c) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,000.00 during the Assessment year 1998-1999 being the expenditures incurred, by the respondent/assessee as the flagship company purported to promote the corporate image of the group companies, in sponsoring the races held by Royal Calcutta Turf club and not for any business carried on by the respondent/assessee ? d) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 32,870.00 out of Rs. 82,870 during the assessment year 1998- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Scheme ignoring the Board Circular dated 23rd January 2001 referred to by the Assessing Officer and the provisions made under Section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without considering the enduring nature of benefit therefrom derived by the respondent/assessee? h) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Tribunal erred in law in deleting the estimated disallowance of proportionate interest of Rs. 2,00,98,622 with reference to Section 36(1)(III) of the said Act during the year 1998-99 on borrowed capital for the purpose of determining the tax free dividend income earned by the respondent/assessee in spite of there being no material before the Learned Tribunal to come to a conclusion that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion nos.(d) and (e) are questions on facts. The learned Tribunal has allowed an expenditure of a sum of Rs. 32,870/- on account of fees for legal assistance paid to the Solicitors while a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was disallowed. It is not in dispute that the expenditure was, in fact, incurred. The only point was that the payment was in connection with services rendered and billed for on 28th February, 1997 and therefore, the expenditure could not be allowed in a subsequent year but that question has not been given much importance by the learned Tribunal for the simple reason that an appeal relating to the year to which the expenditure pertained was also pending and therefore there was, in substance, no reason why the expenditure should not ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arning exempt income. Based on the evidence, he shall arrive at a finding in accordance with law. The question no. (i) is again an outcome of non-application of mind because the order for payment of mesne profits attained finality on 30th July, 1999. Therefore, the same can only be assessable in the year 2000-2001. The learned Tribunal did the correct thing. But the appellant has framed the question without applying any mind. The question no.(j) is equally an outcome of non-application of mind. The immovable property has partly been let out and there were other properties rented by the assessee for the purpose of its business. The learned Tribunal advanced the following reasoning amongst others:- "However, the A.O. has presumed that no ....