TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO and allowing the exemption of Rs. 44,63,29,740/- u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not upholding the status of three investee companies of the assessee as NON- VCU for the reasons discussed in detail in the assessment order. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act on assumption that the deduction claimed in 2016-17 has been allowed in the subsequent year on the basis that the assessee has reversed the interest income received from M/S. Amrapali Smart City Dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, whereas the section 10(23FB), has been amended from 01.04.2008 restricting the scope of investment to only in Venture Capital Undertakings. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred allowing the exemption u/s 10(35) of the Act. of Rs. 2,24,18,067/-earned from distribution from units held in mutual funds. 9. The appellant prays that the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A), on the above grounds be set. aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is registered as a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Pvt. Ltd., Startech infra projects Pvt. Ltd. and Amrapali Smart City Developers Pvt. Ltd. as not eligible for exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. We find that in the year under consideration no income has been received in respect of Startech infra projects Pvt. Ltd. In respect of M/s Amrapali Smart City Developers Pvt. Ltd., the assessee made investment of Rs. 150 crores in the form of OCDs and derived income of Rs. 20,09,74,740/-. The Assessing Officer found that said VCU is not carrying out any real estate business and no financial were maintained by the company. He further observed that no provision of the business was carried out by the company and the director of the company were also in jail, therefore, the company cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese grounds are treated as allowed." 4.3 We find that the Ld. CIT (A) has followed the binding precedent of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for immediately preceding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2016-17. The order of the Tribunal is still in operation and has not been reversed by any higher appellate forum, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT (A) on the issue in dispute. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 5. In ground No. 8, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,24,18,067/- in respect of dividend income from mutual fund which was claimed as exempt. 5.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specific section 10(23FB) and therefore it cannot claim deduction under another section 10(35) of the Act is totally inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Exemption under section 10(23FB) and exemption under section 10(25) of the Act operates in different fields. Learned CIT (A) is correct in holding that operations of these sections are independent. Assessee's income in VCU is exempt under section 10(23FB) of the Act and the dividend income is exempt under section 10(35) of the Act. Hence, there is no infirmity in the assessee's claim of exemption on dividend income under section 10(35) of the Act. Learned CIT(A)'s order in this regard is cogent. Decisions referred by the Assessing Officer has been duly dist....