JUDGMENT : 1. The above Appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 15 th September 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench Mumbai (“for short “ ITAT ”). By the impugned order, the ITAT dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 27 th February 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “ CIT (A) ”]. 2. In the Appeal before us, it is the case of the Revenue that the impugned order of the ITAT gives rise to the following three substantial questions of law:- A) Whether, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18,62,63,876/- on account of disallowance of expenses not considering that the assessee did not explain the purpose and nexus of such expenditure to earning such income ? B) Whether, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not considering that most of the expenses incurred were enduring in nature having impact on multiple years and need to be claimed against substantial income i.e. capital gains which he obtains through the main activity of investment and not against interest income which incidental income ? C) Whether, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in allowing disallowances as per Rule 14A of Rs.68,14,151/- in spite of having exempted dividend income of Rs.7,26,35,789/-, whereas all the expenses were incurred for earning exempt income in the form of capital gains and dividend income? 3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly stated that as far as Question (C) is concerned, the same does not arise from the impugned order, and hence, should be disregarded. He, therefore, submitted that what would survive for our consideration is only Questions (A) and (B). 4. To understand the controversy, it would be necessary to set out some brief facts. The Assessee is a Trust created under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and is a venture capital fund which is registered with the Securities Exchange Board of India. He, therefore, submitted that what would survive for our consideration is only Questions (A) and (B). 4. To understand the controversy, it would be necessary to set out some brief facts. The Assessee is a Trust created under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and is a venture capital fund which is registered with the Securities Exchange Board of India. The main activity of the Assessee is to float various schemes with a focus to invest primarily in entities engaged in the real estate sector dealing with immovable property of any kind and any rights and interests therein. The Fund’s duration is of 20 years or until the expiry of the last scheme of the Fund whichever is later. 5. For Assessment Year 2009-10, the Assessee filed its Return of Income on 30 th September 2009 declaring a total income of Rs.26.77 Crores. During the Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer, after examining the nature of the activities carried on by the Assessee, was of the view that it being a Venture Capital Fund, would have to be assessed in terms of Section 115U of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “ I.T. Act ”). As per the Assessing Officer, the Venture Capital Fund did not have its own income but the income was taxable in the hands of the investors/contributors to the said Fund. However, according to the Assessing Officer, since the Assessee had voluntarily subjected itself to be taxed, the Assessing Officer accepted the decision of the Assessee. This position is, of course, refuted by the Assessee, in as much as it is the case of the Assessee that during the relevant period, the Fund being one which invested in the real estate sector, was not one which was exempted from paying tax under Section 10(23FB) of the I. T. Act, and hence, offered to pay tax on its income. 6. Be that as it may, the Assessing Officer initially came to the conclusion that the most of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee were not allowable under Section 57(iii) of the I. T. Act since the income offered to tax was under Section 56 (Income from Other Sources). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs.18.62 Crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. Being aggrieved by this decision of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee preferred an Appeal to the CIT(A). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs.18.62 Crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. Being aggrieved by this decision of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee preferred an Appeal to the CIT(A). Once the Appeal was filed, the CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer. Interestingly, in the Remand Report, the Assessing Officer stated that on a detailed verification he found that a major part of the expenses would be allowable as per the provisions of Section 57(iii) of the I. T. Act. He, however, raised a doubt in relation to the expenses of Rs.2,34,81,823/-. In other words, the expenditure of Rs.18.62 Crores initially disallowed, was now reduced to Rs.2.34 Crores. Once the Remand Report was received, the CIT(A) after examining the case of the Assessee, deleted the entire disallowance including the disallowance of Rs.2.34 Crores. 8. Being aggrieved by this order of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred an Appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT also confirmed the findings given by the CIT(A) and dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue. 9. From the facts of this case, there are two things that have emerged. Firstly, we find that the question of law as framed, namely, Question No.(A) cannot be for the figure of Rs.18,62,63,876/- but only to the extent of Rs.2,34,81,823/-. We say this because the Assessing Officer himself has given a finding (in the Remand Report) that a major portion of the expenditure is allowable under Section 57(iii) and there is a dispute only with reference to an amount of Rs.2.34 Crores. Once this is the Remand Report, the dispute if any, before us, can only be of Rs.2.34 Crores and not the entire expenditure of Rs.18.62 Crores. 10. Once this is the case, we find that the tax effect in this Appeal would itself be below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 2 Crores as more particularly set out in the CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17 th September 2024. In other words, this Appeal would have to be dismissed for low tax effect. 11. Be that as it may, even otherwise, we are of the view that the findings given by the CIT(A) on the aspect of deleting the disallowance of expenditure made by the Assessing Officer to be purely factual in nature. In other words, this Appeal would have to be dismissed for low tax effect. 11. Be that as it may, even otherwise, we are of the view that the findings given by the CIT(A) on the aspect of deleting the disallowance of expenditure made by the Assessing Officer to be purely factual in nature. The CIT(A) after examining all the facts and circumstances, has come to a conclusion that there is a direct nexus between the income earned and the expenditure incurred. It is on this basis that the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. These findings of the CIT(A) have in fact been confirmed by the ITAT in the impugned order. 12. Once the entire matter is decided on facts, and is fact driven, we are clearly of the view that the above Appeal does not give rise to any question of law requiring an answer by this Court. It is not even the Revenue’s case that the findings of fact rendered by the Authorities below, are either perverse or contrary to record. In these circumstances, whichever way we look at it, either from the low tax effect, or on merits, the above Appeal does not deserve any further consideration. Accordingly, the above Appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.