TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1204 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2017 - M. S. SANKLECHA AND A.K. MENON , JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kotangle with Mr. Arun Nagarjun with Ms.Padma Divakar For The Respondent : Dr. K. Shivram, Senior Counsel with Ms. Rahul Hakani P.C. : 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 200708. 2. This appeal urges the following question of law for our consideration :- (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing as a deduction the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of interest on fixed deposit and is correctly assessed as income from other sources. 5. Being aggrieved the respondent filed further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order recorded the fact that the expenses of ₹ 1.17 crores was disallowed as business has not been set up in the year under consideration by the lower authorities. The impugned order also makes reference to the fact that the company was incorporated in the year 2006 and the Assistant Registrar of Companies has issued a certificate that the company had commenced business with effect from 1st October, 2006. Further the impugned order records the fact that from the balance sheet and profit and loss account filed which includes Director's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. 6. The grievance of the revenue before us is only with regard to the impugned order allowing the expenditure of ₹ 1.17 crores as business loss. This conclusion of the Tribunal is premised on the fact that the business has been set up during the year under consideration. It is submitted by the Revenue that no evidence was produced by the assessee to show that any activities of management of funds have been taken by the respondent assessee during the assessment year. Thus no expenditure resulting in business loss could be allowed as the business had not commenced. According to the Revenue, there is no distinction between setting up of business and commencement of business. Therefore, no expenditure incurred before com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to show any distinction which would warrant taking a different view of meaning of business being set up, as understood by the Tribunal in HSBC Securities India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Mr. Kotangale states that the revenue has accepted the decision of the Tribunal in HSBC Securities India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) with regard to business expenditure being allowed on setting up of business, even if the business is yet to commence. The determination of the issue of whether the business has been set up is essentially one of finding of fact. This finding of fact on the basis of the test laid down by this Court in Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal in HSBC S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
