TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law in allowing deduction of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- on account of premium actually paid on redemption of debentures during the year, having held separately that premium on redemption of debentures is allowable on proportionate basis on year to year basis spread over the period of debentures, thus allowing double deduction? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in holding that attrition of foreign exchange in EEFC account amounting to Rs. 1,09,89,916/- includible in the export turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC even though the same is not brought into India as per requirements of Sec. 80HHHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act read with definition of 'export turnover' as given in clause (b) of explanation to Sec. 80HHC of the Income-tax Act? (D) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in holding that local sales turnover is to be excluded for the purpose of calculating deduction under Section 80HHC(3) even though the definition of total turnover given in clause (ba) of explanation to Section 80HHC does not provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in allowing interest paid by the assessee amounting to Rs. 2,52,64,970/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act on loans from financial institutions and banks for expansion of projects and purchase of capital assets relating to existing business even though the same is not allowable in view of proviso to Sec.36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act ? (N) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in confirming order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,03,314/- made by the A.O under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of Assessee's Director and ex-employee Shri T.C.Saboo? (O) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in directing the A.O to exclude 90% of net interest and rent for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC although as per provisions of clause (baa) to explanation to Section 80HHC, 90% of gross interest and rent is to be excluded ? (P) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom domestic companies being the interest attributed to earning of this dividend income for the purpose of allowing exemption under Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act ? (X) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,68,49,864/- made by the A.O in respect of dividend on Unit-64 received from UTI being interest attributable to earning of such dividend? (Y) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in allowing expenditure of Rs. 2,54,941/- paid to Vyas Gisaneeti Creating as business expenditure towards formulating and structuring plans for Aditya Birla Scholarships under Section 37(1)/28 of the Income Tax Act ? (Z) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT are justified in law in allowing expenditure of Rs. 10,08,348/- paid to Price Water House Coopers Ltd. even though the same is capital in nature ? The appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law raised in grounds (C), (D), (O) [partly], (P) to (W) and (X). Re: Questions A & B : 3. Question (A) is cov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic. In view thereof, it is not necessary for us to consider even whether the question sought to be raised is a substantial question of law. Re: Questions I & J : 8. It is agreed that these questions were also sought to be raised in the department's appeal for assessment year 1996-97 being Income Tax Appeal No.690 of 2007. This Court had dismissed the appeal. In the subsequent years viz. for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the questions were decided in favour of the respondent and the revenue had accepted the decision of the CIT (Appeals). These issues, therefore, do not raise a substantial question of law. Re: Question K : 9. It is agreed that this issue is answered against the appellant by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Woodward Governor India Private Limited 312 ITR 254. Re: Question M : 10. It is agreed that this question is covered against the department by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Limited 298 ITR 194, Asstt. CIT v. Arvind Polycot Limited 299 ITR 12 (SC) and Jt. CIT v. United Phosphorous Limited 299 ITR 9 (SC). Re: Question N : 10. The Tribunal had allowed the payments to the same employee for the assessment ....