2017 (4) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lowing 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 holding that an amount of Rs. 490 per share received by the respondent-assessee constituted share premium of the assessee company ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in disagreeing with invocation of section 68 of the Act to tax share premium ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that because its subsidiary company has started manufacturing and therefore interest income from fixed deposit is to be charged as business inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd II are all by public sector undertakings. (c) Mr. Chhotaray the learned counsel for the Revenue states that the impugned order itself holds that share premium of Rs. 490 per share defies all commercial prudence. Therefore it has to be considered to be cash credit. We find that the Tribunal has examined the case of the Revenue on the parameters of section 68 of the Act and found on facts that it is not so hit. Therefore, section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The Revenue has not been able to show in any manner the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse in any manner. (d) Thus, question No. (ii) as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law and thus not entertained. 4. Regarding qu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect assessment year, had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the disallowance was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). This disallowance was on account of non commencement of business. However the same has been reversed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It has taken a view that the business of the respondent- assessee was of financing, investing, sourcing, operating, green or clean technological products and services had commenced. Therefore, consequently, allowed the claim made for depreciation and expenses to deter mine business profits. The above finding of the Tribunal that the business of the respondent had commenced is not challenged before us by the Revenue. It needs no emphasis that setting up a business....