2023 (3) TMI 1113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tial questions of law:- "1. Whether the Tribunal below, while interpreting section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, committed substantial error of law in holding that deduction under the first proviso was alternative to that under sub-clause (a) and that no deduction under the first proviso was allowable if deduction had been allowed under sub-clause (a) thereby rejecting the appellant's claim for deduction of Rs.140,33,70,000/- under the first proviso ? 2. Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the proviso of sub-sections (2) and (3) inserted in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1,2007 and Rule 8D inserted in the Income Tax Rules 1962 on March 24, 2008 was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited reported in (2019)112 Taxmann.com 386 (Mad.). The only distinction in the said case was that the respondent assessee in the said case was Public Financial Institution to which subclause (c) under the said provision would stand attracted. The question of applying sub-clause(3) in Section 36(1)(viia)(a) does not arise and the proviso cannot be read independently was rejected for the reason that the proviso to sub-clause (c) in Section 36(1)(viia)(a) uses the words "at its option". The proviso provided that a Public Financial Institution or a State Financial Corporation or a State Industrial Investment Corporation referred to in sub-clause (c) of Section 36(1)....