2018 (7) TMI 1562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenses amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs were notionally allocable to the earning of dividend income? (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in considering Stamp Duty incurred as an expenditure allocable to the earning of dividend income, when the same had been disallowed? (3) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in ignoring the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Central Bank of India - 264 ITR 522? 3) The appellant, for the subject Assessment Year, had claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80M of the Act to the extent of Rs. 73.38 lakhs being the intercorporat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are being taken together as question no.3 is a submission in support of question no.1 raised herein. 7) Mr. Jasani, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that issue stands concluded in favour of the appellant-assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Central Bank of India 264 ITR 522, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. General Insurance Corporation of India, 254 ITR 203 and CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (2017) 86 Taxmann.Com pg 24. In the aforesaid decisions, this Court has held that while computing dividend under Section 80M of the Act, as existing in the relevant time, only actual expenses are deductible and not expenditure on a notional basis. It is also submitted that the decision of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the issue of notional expenses being disallowed. Nevertheless in United General Trust Ltd (supra) before the Supreme Court the respondent assessee therein, conceded that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Distributor (Baroda) Pvt Ltd (supra), the dividend received has to be reduced by notional expenses for claiming the benefit of Section 80M of the Act. This concession was made even though Distributor (Baroda) Pvt Ltd. (supra) did not deal with it. However, as held by the Apex Court in M.R. Apparao (supra) a decision rendered on concession is not binding as a precedent. In fact, subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in United General Trust Ltd (supra), this Court in Central Bank of India Ltd (supra), General Insurance C....