9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of ld. CIT(A) reducing the disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB on the issue of inter-unit investments while the Assessing Officer had disallowed the deduction after making calculations as per law and facts of the case as the Assessee had transferred followed funds to the eligible units for the purpose of inflating profits to avail more deduction u/s 80-IB in these units? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggregating to Rs. 15,40,85,638/-. The three units at Samba had claimed the benefits under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer held that profits of Unit-I, Samba to the tune of Rs. 65,18,254/- and that of Unit-II, Samba, to the tune of Rs. 72,00,576/- were not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB. The Assessing Officer did not deal with the assessee's further contention that the Ludhiana Unit from which the funds have been transferred to the Samba Unit had sufficient interest-free funds and reserve funds for the purpose of investing in the three Samba Units. The Assessing Officer applied a rate of 12% towards interest on the funds advanced by the Ludhiana Unit to the three Samba Units and computed the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an assessee would invest the amount yielding exempt income from the interest-free funds in the first instance. However, keeping all the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, the appellate authority decided to apportion the amount. 5. Question Nos.1 and 4, therefore, do not raise a substantial question of law. The authorities merely appreciated the available evidence. Re: Question No.2: 6. The respondent-assessee had advanced the amounts to its subsidiary companies on interest @ 10 per cent per annum. The Assessing Officer had considered the rate of interest to be 12 per cent per annum. The appellate authority having accepted the figure of 10 per cent per annum cannot be said to be perverse or absurd either. The issue does not rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
