TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned yesterday by Mr. N.N. Singh, counsel for the revenue. At his specific request this matter was placed on board today to be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.1107 of 202. The matter is first on Board along with Income Tax Appeal No.1107 of 2012. The counsel Mr.N.N. Singh is not present. However, as the matter has been specifically kept for today, we proceed to hear of the matter in the absen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applying the ratio of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Dresser Rand IP Ltd. reported in 323 ITR 429 to the present case ? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Mumbai was justified deleting the disallowance of ₹ 48,00,000/- being the amount written off by the assessee on account of inter corporate deposits (ICD) and in ignori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent-assessee is, whether the amount written off on account of the intercorporate deposit is allowable as a business loss or as a bad debt ? (ii) The respondent-assessee had advanced as intercorporate deposits of various amounts to about 15 companies and the interest earned on them were offered for tax. The respondent-assessee had advanced as intercorporate deposit an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal by the revenue, upheld the order of CIT(A). The case of the revenue that the loss had nothing to do with the business of the assessee and, therefore, could not be allowed as business loss was negatived by the Tribunal with a finding of fact that the respondent-assessee was lending its surplus money as intercorporate deposits and the interest earned on the same were being subjected to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord to indicate that the revenue has challenged the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years allowing the claim of the respondent-assessee. Moreover, neither before the Tribunal nor before us, the revenue made any attempt to distinguish the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier years from the facts as appearing in the present assessment year. In view of the above, we find no fault ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
