TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins that by the powers vested under Section 254(2) the Tribunal cannot look into some other circumstances to reconsider the matter or to review the matter. So long as the overall judgment of the Tribunal is based on proper logic, even if there is an error of judgment that by itself cannot give rise to exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. We find to be in consonance with the language of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, which enables claiming deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertaking or hotel business in backward areas, that no substantial question of law arises for determination and consideration in this Appeal. Such findings of fact, cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est payable on the bank overdraft has to be allocated towards Medak unit. 5 Even with regard to this aspect, the revenue is not aggrieved. The revenue is aggrieved only with regard to allowing of the assessee's Appeal by the Tribunal by its initial order insofar as, the allocation of research and development expenses incurred in relation to Medak unit. In para 7.2 of the initial order, the Tribunal on this aspect held as under: As regards the R D expenses, in our view, only actual research development expenditure incurred in relation to Medak unit can be allocated. In this case, there is no material placed on record to show that any research and development expenditure had been incurred by Medak Unit. The allocation has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct is that the Assessee has not maintained any separate Books of Account. The Assessee never pleaded before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal in the initial round that it had maintained the separate Books of Account. 8 The Tribunal noted this contention of the Revenue as also rival contention of the Assessee in the order passed on the Misc. Application 250/MUM/2013 dated 06th December 2013 and observed as under: 7. When the Bench requested the counsel to prove that it had maintained separate books of account in respect of its Medak unit, no material, whatsoever, could be furnished except stating that the books were subjected to tax audit. In fact there is no specific contention befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not correct, and III) the assessee had maintained separate books from which it could easily be found out whether the expenditure has been incurred or not but no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to prove that the aseessee had incurred any such expenditure in relation to Medak unit. By virtue of long drawn process of reasoning it could, no doubt, be argued that the ultimate decision was influenced by the assumption that the assessee maintained separate books of account in respect of its Medak unit but the chronology in which the issue was considered in para 7.2 of the order indicates that the Revenue has to prove that some expenditure was incurred by Medak unit and it cannot allocate some expenditure on estima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
