TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 17th May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This appeal raises the following questions of law for our consideration : "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntract?" 3. Regarding Question No.(i): (a) In the subject assessment year the respondent-assessee received dividend income of Rs. 1.25 crores on shares and Rs. 3.18 crores from mutual funds. In its return the respondent-assessee claimed the aforesaid income to be exempted under the Act. However in its return the respondent-assessee disallowed an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs on its own as having been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds to the extent of Rs. 379 crores available. This was sufficient to meet the investment of Rs. 50.88 crores made in shares and mutual funds by the respondent-assessee. In the above view, the impugned order placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 wherein it has been held that where there is a common pool of funds i.e. own funds and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal. For the subject assessment year the Assessing Officer brought to tax income determined as per the normal provisions. This was in view of the fact that the tax payable on income determined under the normal provisions is more than the tax payable under Section 115JB of the Act. The issue of application of Section 115JB of the Act was thus not even canvassed either before the CIT (A) or befo....