TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Present: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Mr. Aditya Vohra, Advs. for appellant. Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department. O R D E R 1. The assessee/appellant urges that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fell into error in declining to condone the delay which occurred in the filing of its cross-objection having regard to the changed position in law substantively, wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 14A of the Act was by way of investment in subsidiary for business purposes and not for investment purposes and therefore, the disallowance was not warranted. That concededly was the purport of CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. (supra) and other decisions relied upon by the assessee. 3. The cross-objections were grossly delayed - to the extent of about 1400 days or so. The ITAT refused to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 14A to the exempt income derived in the present case and whether that be brought to tax at all. Learned counsel relied upon National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) as well as the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court [Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Turquoise Investment and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 143 (MP)]. It was submitted that in the larger interest of justice, once the appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the order on 27.10.2010. In the circumstances, the belated cross-objections - by over four years, in the opinion of the Court, meant that the appellants were seeking to rake up stale issues for which they had accepted the finality as regards their tax liability. 6. The reference to National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), in the opinion of the Court, is entirely irrelevant. In that case, the ....