2018 (8) TMI 1726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0809. 2 The Appellant Assessee urges only the following questions of law, for our consideration: "(a) Whether on a true and proper construction of section 254(1) of the Act, the Tribunal was justified in not giving any reasons and in not deciding the issue relating to disallowance under section 14A of the Act qua strategic investments made in the firms and companies for executing various projects? (b) Whether on a true and proper construction of sections 36(1)(iii) read with section 14A of the Act, the Tribunal was justified in confirming disallowance under section 14A in respect of strategic investments made in Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) namely in the firms and companies for executing various projects in the course ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before us that, the aforesaid alternate contention was not urged before the Tribunal. In the above view, we pointed that in view of the decisions of this Court in CIT v/s. Tata Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 256 ITR 395 and CIT v/s. Smt. Lata Shantilal Shah 323 ITR 297 - an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, can only be in respect of issues which were raised before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the issue of the disallowance in excess of the total exempt income was not an issue urged before the Tribunal. Therefore, it would be not possible for us to entertain this appeal as the issue being urged before us now, is not, an issue of jurisdiction. 6 In fact, the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., 1961 SCC 1633 had while dealing wi....