2025 (12) TMI 1359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITAT dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 27th February 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short "CIT (A)"]. 2. In the Appeal before us, it is the case of the Revenue that the impugned order of the ITAT gives rise to the following three substantial questions of law:- A) Whether, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,62,63,876/- on account of disallowance of expenses not considering that the assessee did not explain the purpose and nexus of such expenditure to earning such income ? B) Whether, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....piry of the last scheme of the Fund whichever is later. 5. For Assessment Year 2009-10, the Assessee filed its Return of Income on 30th September 2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 26.77 Crores. During the Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer, after examining the nature of the activities carried on by the Assessee, was of the view that it being a Venture Capital Fund, would have to be assessed in terms of Section 115U of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "I. T. Act"). As per the Assessing Officer, the Venture Capital Fund did not have its own income but the income was taxable in the hands of the investors/contributors to the said Fund. However, according to the Assessing Officer, since the Assessee had voluntarily subjected ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., deleted the entire disallowance including the disallowance of Rs. 2.34 Crores. 8. Being aggrieved by this order of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred an Appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT also confirmed the findings given by the CIT(A) and dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue. 9. From the facts of this case, there are two things that have emerged. Firstly, we find that the question of law as framed, namely, Question No.(A) cannot be for the figure of Rs. 18,62,63,876/- but only to the extent of Rs.2,34,81,823/-. We say this because the Assessing Officer himself has given a finding (in the Remand Report) that a major portion of the expenditure is allowable under Section 57(iii) and there is a dispute only with reference to an amount of R....