Ita/167/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ldh v. M/S Vardhman Spiining And General Mills

ITA No. 167 of 2003 (O&M)-|- IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 167 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ....... Appellant *#+&,& M/s Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’), against the order dated26.03.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (A), in ITA Nos.973/CHANDI/96 and 917/CHANDI/96, _ forthe assessment year 1991-92, raising the following substantialquestions of law: (i) Whether in view of the circumstances and factsof the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax AppellateTribunal erred in deleting the disallowance made bythe Assessing Officer and confirmed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) amountingto Rs.1,61,504/- on account of items presented bythe assessee and are in the nature of advertisement? ITA No. 167 of 2003 (O&M) -)| (11) (a) Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis correct in ignoring the expenditure incurred forearning the Dividend Income, while allowing reliefu/s 80-M without examining the fact that suchexpenditure was actually incurred to earn dividendincome which was liable to be considered fordeduction u/s 80-M2 (b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal iscorrect in ignoring the fact that dividend incomemeans gross dividend income as reduced by relatedexpenditure? (iii) Whether the income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas correct in ignoring explanation baa below subsection 4B of Section 80HHC and taking the rentalincome out of the ambit of Explanation baa byholding it as business income? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, asthe tax effect involved is less than ©|20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGEH