TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded that accounts had revealed that there were certain heads of expenditure which could have been incurred towards the management. Thus, the Assessing Officer has made his own assessment and not recorded the satisfaction based on the record. In that view of the matter, the solitary ground urged by Shri Sanmathi is untenable. The Tribunal has rightly followed the decision of this Court in [ 2020 (12) TMI 679 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] Hence, this question of law raised by the Revenue is answered in favour of the Assessee. Resultantly, this appeal does not merit any consideration. Before parting with the case, we had requested the learned advocates on both sides and also Shri A.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate as amicus curie to assist thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal stands dismissed with the observations recorded hereinabove. - I.T.A No.186 OF 2022 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA Appellants (By Shri. Sanmathi E.I, Advocate) Respondents (By Miss. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate For R1; Shri. A. Shankar, Senior Advocate As Amicus Curiae ) JUDGMENT P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., Heard Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned advocate for first respondent and Shri A.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate as Amicus curiae. 2. Revenue has presented this appeal for framing the following questions of law; (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Appeals)) was partly allowed. Assessee challenged the same before the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal). Revenue also filed its cross objections. Tribunal has held that Assessee has received dividend income from only one company namely M/s. Indo Russian Aviation Ltd., and in the facts of the case, the provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules should not have been applied mechanically. Shri Sanmathi submitted that ITAT has allowed the appeal by following the decision in Assessee's own case in ITA No.404/2016 c/w ITA.No.468/2016 (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another (D.D. 09.12.2020)), wherein Assessee's appeal in ITA No.404/2016 has been allowed on the premise that the Assessing Officer had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Union of India and the companies fully owned by the Government of India. In the instant case, the Assessee is Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. The appellant is the Government of India represented by the Ministry of Finance. Shri Shankar pointed out that the Supreme Court had considered this aspect in the four cases, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise (2004) 6 SCC 437 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise (2007) 7 SCC 39. Subsequently, in the case of Electronics C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akings, which are fully owned by the Government of India and regulated by the Ministries like, HAL, ISRO, etc., is not desirable. It would be in the interest of all the concerned to ensure that there is no litigation at all or as minimum litigation as most essential. We take this opportunity to convey our concern and to ensure that these directions reach the appropriate forum, we direct the learned advocate for the appellant to implead Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of Finance as respondents No.2 and 3. Impleadment shall be carried out forthwith. Shri Shanthibhushan, learned ASG is directed to take notice. We direct respondents No.2 and 3 to examine in detail and issue appropriate directions to the concerned Public Sector/Undertak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
