TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principles of natural justice. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 2.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 4,27,180/-. 2.2 While doing so, the CIT (A) erred in: (i) Holding that the disallowance had to be on the basis of the principles as spelt out in the rule 8D of the Income - tax Rules; (ii) Computing the disallowance by applying half percent to the total investments; and (iii) Summarily disregarding and ignoring completely the detailed factual submissions made by the Appellant. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, assuming - but not admitting - that some disallowance u/s. 14A was called for, it is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the computation of disallowance made by the ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in computing the interest income under the head "Income from Other Sources" instead of under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actual submissions made by the Appellant. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, assuming - but not admitting - that some disallowance u/s. 14A was called for, it is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the computation of disallowance made by the ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law. 3. CHANGE IN HEAD OF INCOME FOR INTEREST INCOME 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer ("the AO.") whereby the AO. treated the interest income received by the Appellant, amounting to Rs. 1,52,24,114/-, as assessable under the head "Income from Other Sources" as against under the head "Business Income", declared by the Appellant in its return of income. 3.2 While doing so, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had earned interest income in the course of its regular business activities. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 3.4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have been granted to the Appellant. 3. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 5,13,787/-. 3.2 While doing so, the CIT (A) erred in: (i) Holding that the disallowance had to be on the basis of the principles as spelt out in the rule 80 of the Income - tax Rules; (ii) Computing the disallowance by applying half percent to the total investments; and (iii) Summarily disregarding and ignoring completely the detailed factual submissions made by the Appellant. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 3.4 Without prejudice to the above, assuming - but not admitting - that some disallowance u/s. 14A was called for, it is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the computation of disallowance made by the ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law." 5. Common grounds have been taken in all the years under consideration, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are now decided by this consolidated orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also taxed Rs. 41,75,980/- on account of receipt of share from Venture Capital Company. The facts are that the assessee had made investment in the Venture Capital Company in the earlier years. During the financial year 2004-05 the account of assessee was squared with the Venture Capital Company. At this time, assessee was given shares of corporate entity, Biocon Ltd, valuing Rs. 53,25,061/-. At the same time an amount of Rs. 11,49,081/- was charged from assessee on account of expenses. Assessee received a net amount of Rs. 41,75,980/- and the account of assessee was squared up. In the original return of income this amount was offered to tax. In the course of assessment proceedings, a fresh computation of income was filed which was based upon Form No.64 issued by the Venture Capital Company wherein this amount under consideration was shown as unrealized capital gain. Accordingly, before the Assessing Officer the claim was put up that the amount under consideration was not chargeable to tax. It was contended that Section 155 U of the Income. tax Act was applicable and the calculation is contained in Form 64 depicted the correct income chargeable to tax and accordingly, the amount u....