9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 200809. 2. The Revenue has urged the following question of law for our consideration : "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made to earn the above exempt income. On first appeal, the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld by an order dated 21st June, 2011 passed the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)]. 4. On further appeal, the Tribunal observed that disallowance of Rs. 76.71 lakhs comprises two elements as under : (a) Rs. 59.79 lakhs as interest disallowed (b) Rs. 16.92 lakhs other expenses disallowed at 0. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. In the above view, the impugned order deleted the addition of Rs. 59.79 lakhs made in view of disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Act. 6. So far as second issue is concerned, the order of the CIT(A) disallowing an amount of Rs. 16.92 lakhs was upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal. This on application of Rule 8D of the Rules as the year under consideration was A.Y. 200809 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than the investments made to earn exempt incomes as in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra). Thus, the presumption applies. Further, nothing has been shown to us to warrant taking a different view to that taken in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra). In view of the fact that the question as raised stands concluded by the decision of this Court in favour of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
