CIT Vs. GOLDEN INVESTMENTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the revenue by framing the question of law as follows:

(2.) THE case of the revenue is that the Tribunal without giving a finding as to whether the assessee is also a dealer in shares directed to make proportion (sic -apportionment), in respect of the dividend received by them. Hence, without there being any finding that the assessee is a dealer in shares, such a direction for apportionment cannot be legally sustained.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that though the question of law is not happily worded, the intention with which the appeal has been filed by the Revenue is only to consider whether the dividend so directed to the apportioned by the Tribunal in respect of the two businesses is referable to the gross dividend or net dividend, which argument can also be easily rejected as it is clear from the order of the Tribunal that the dividend directed to be apportioned is only dividend representing the net dividend and not the gross dividend. The Tribunal in its order has categorically held that the deduction under section 80M should be allowed on the net dividend after deduction of the interest on the capital borrowed for investment and not on the gross amount of dividend.