9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2013, the Respondent-Assessee filed return of income for the year 2012-13, declaring a total income of Rs. 7748250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer and a notice was issued on 6 August 2013 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Another notice was given in view of the change of the Assessing Officer. The assessment under Section 143(3) was finalised, determining the total income at Rs. 24027928/-, after making addition of Rs. 15927795/-since interest expenditure was included in closing of work in progress and addition of Rs. 351883/- was made in respect of sponsorship expenses to the returned income. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, passed an order on 27 March 2015. 3. The Respondent-Assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be directly attributed to the work in progress, is incorrect. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Assesses submitted that the question raised is a question of fact and no question of law arises. 7. We have gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) had, after considering the material before them, found that no additions were made in the work in progress, which fact was not controverted by the Departmental Representative and rather it was conceded by the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue did not controvert the contention of the Respondent-Assessee that the amount was advanced keeping in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant for construing Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Be that as it may, in the decision of the Apex Court in British Paints India Ltd. (supra), itself the Apex Court has indicted what is profit or trade or business and how it is to be ascertained and the questions analogous to the same, as involved in the present appeal, are essentially questions of fact. Both the authorities have rendered a concurrent finding of fact. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate as to how the question of law will still arise, if the question of fact rendered by both the authorities are confirmed. The scope of the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, is well settled. The High Court will entertain an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
