Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 590 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - deduction of finance charges u/s 36(1)(iii) - non discussion of case law relied upon - HELD THAT:- Activity of investment in group company for acquiring controlling interest when such investment has been treated as long term investment in the financial statement cannot be considered as main business activity of the assessee, consequently, the assessee is not liable for deduction towards finance charges u/s 36(1)(iii). Tribunal has recorded its finding on the basis of facts brought out by the parties during the course of hearing. No doubt, the decision relied upon the assessee in the case of Pistabai Rikhabchand Kothari [2013 (1) TMI 852 - ITAT MUMBAI] has not been discussed in the order of the Tribunal, but fact remains that whether it is necessary to discuss the case laws referred to by the parties is depend upon the facts of each case. If the Court /Tribunal finds that the facts of the present cases is different from the case laws relied upon by the parties, then it is not necessary for Court/Tribunal to discuss the said case in the order as long the larger ratio rendered by the courts is not in conformity with the facts of the present case. The ratio rendered by any Courts/Tribunal is not universal and such ration is solely depends upon facts of each case. The ratio or observations of the Court cannot be picked to suit the particular facts of the present case, unless the facts brought out in those cases are identical to the facts brought out by the lower authorities in the case on hand. We find that the case relied upon by the the assessee is all together different which cannot be applied to the facts of the present case and hence, the Tribunal has taken conscious decision not to discuss the case laws referred by the assessee in its order. We are of the considered view that there is no merit in the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee in light of decision in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs CIT [2007 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] hence, we are of the considered view that assessee has failed to make out a case of mistakes apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal which can be rectified u/s 254(2) - Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
|