TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent/Assessee raised disputes on seven different grounds, the present Appeal concerns only the issue/ground No.6 regarding claim of deduction under Section 80HH. 3 The Tribunal in the initial order appears to have considered this claim under two heads. It considered the claim in general in respect of business profit and in paragraphs 7 and 7.1 of the initial order, it directed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was in error, insofar as addition made in the business income under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 4 We are not concerned with this part. From para 7.2 onwards, the Tribunal in the initial order considered the allocation of the interest expenditure to Medak unit. The Tribunal found that in the Assessee's own ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT (A) on this point and allow the claim of the assesseee." 6 The revenue preferred a Misc. Application and invoked Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, only in relation to the ground No.6 and restricted to the deduction under Section 80HH of the Medak unit. 7 The revenue filed Misc. Application mainly with regard to the observations concerning allocation of research and development expenditure by urging that the ultimate decision of the Tribunal is based upon an erroneous assumption that the Assessee has maintained separate Books of Account and hence, the burden is upon the revenue to prove that the Assessee has incurred some additional expenditure over and above what was shown in the Books of Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the assessee has not maintained separate accounts for its Medak unit but the fact remains that by the powers vested under Section 254(2) the Tribunal cannot look into some other circumstances to reconsider the matter or to review the matter. So long as the overall judgment of the Tribunal is based on proper logic, even if there is an error of judgment that by itself cannot give rise to exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. 203 ITR 497. The Tribunal has taken into consideration three aspects i.e.: I) there is no material placed on record to show that any research and development expenditure had been incurred by Medak unit....