TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 5th April, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata (the 'Tribunal' in short) in ITA No.866/Kol/2012 and ITA No.932/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,99,56,281/- being 60% of the aggregate expenditure incurred on running and maintenance of aircrafts without considering that the aircrafts were also used for personal purposes of the directors? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition on account of interest amounting to Rs. 1,71,99,475/- being 12% of interest free advances given to subsidiary companies for non business purpose based on the presumption that those advances were made by the assessee out of its own funds and not out of the borrowed funds bearing interest? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of Rs. 18,29,94,840/- paid as commission to and sitting fees to directors of the company without deducting tax at source under section 194H of Income Tax Act? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therein and we find from the judgment dated 23rd July, 2018 passed in ITAT/53/2017 that the said question was not pressed by the revenue and consequently rejected. Therefore, the substantial question of law no.1 raised before us stands rejected. Substantial question of law no.2 was also question no.2 in ITAT/53/2017. The Division Bench in its judgement dated 23rd July, 2018 found that the Tribunal held the addition to be erroneous and has considered in detail the nature and expenses in respect of which the assessee was sought to be penalized for not deducting the tax deducted at sources, holding that these expenses were in respect of the income accrued outside the territory for services rendered. With this finding the said question was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act for the assessment years in question, at a time when such Explanation was not actually and factually in the statute. Therefore, question no.2 stands rejected. Question nos.3 and 4 are identical to question no.1 framed in ITAT/53/2017, which was rejected. That apart, the decision in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P. Ltd. (supra) would come to the aid and assistance of the assessee. Therefore, question nos. 3 and 4 are rejected. So far as question no.5 is concerned, the same did not arise for the assessment year 2006-07. The issue was whether the disallowance made by the assessing officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was justified. On perusing paragraph 7....