TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, when the entire issue is at large and the direction issued by the learned ITAT is very clear while remitting the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer, we see no reason to interfere with the same. It goes without saying that the learned Assessing Officer after giving an opportunity to the assessee shall consider the entire issue with respect to the working out deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) more particularly explanation (h) to Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. - TAX APPEAL NO. 242 of 2017, AND TAX APPEAL NO. 243 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH, AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Appellant : MR MANISH R BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or advance where the terms under which the monies were loaned or advanced provided for repayment along with the interest thereof beyond the period of 5 years and therefore, partly allowed the claim of the assessee of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. [2.2] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment orders and with respect to the working out deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred Tax Appeals before the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowances with respect to deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act. The matters were carried further to the learned ITAT. From the impugned orders passed by the learned ITAT it appears that the learned IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng back the issue of workingout deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act while giving a finding that the fact that the loan was assigned transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material? [3.0] Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that as such the learned ITAT has misdirected itself in deciding the issue before it. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer did not disallow the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act on the ground that the loan portfolio was assigned within a period of 5 years from the date of its sanction. It is submitted that as such the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loan portfolio / loan was assigned / transferred before 5 years from the date of sanction is not material. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned ITAT on the aforesaid proposed question of law. [5.1] Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Assessing Officer as such disallowed the working out of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act partly with respect to the period within 5 years from the date of sanction and therefore, the learned ITAT ought not to have remitted the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such on the aforsaid no question of law is proposed. Even otherwise the direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
