Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1787 - AT - Income TaxAdditions in assessments u/s 153A - as alleged absence of incriminating materials found in the course of search relatable to unabated assessments in the facts and circumstances of the case - HELD THAT:- We hold that the legislature does not differentiate whether the assessments originally were framed u/s 143(1) or 143(3) or 147 of the Act. Hence unless there is any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to those concluded years, the statute does not confer any power on the ld AO to disturb the findings given thereon and income determined thereon, as finality had already been reached thereon, and those proceedings were not pending on the date of search to get themselves abated. As relying on RAHEE TRACK TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2016 (10) TMI 969 - ITAT KOLKATA] the additions made in the assessments framed u/s 153A of the Act for the Asst Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the absence of incriminating materials found in the course of search relatable to those assessment years, deserve to be deleted. Disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund - delayed remittances - HELD THAT:- The said provident fund dues for July 2008 was remitted by the assessee on 16.8.2008 as against the due date of 15.8.2008 and since 15th August happened to be a bank holiday, the same was remitted on the immediately succeeding working day. Hence the same is allowable as deduction. He also argued that since the same was remitted before the end of the previous year, the same is allowable as deduction in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Coal India Ltd [2015 (8) TMI 1451 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- This tribunal had already held in the case of REI Agro Ltd vs DCIT [2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT KOLKATA] confirmed by HC [2014 (4) TMI 713 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that only dividend bearing investments are to be considered for computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. We find that the Circular of CBDT relied upon by the ld DR is binding only on the revenue authorities and not on the courts. We find that the decision relied upon by the ld DR on the special bench of Delhi Tribunal had been reversed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs CIT [2009 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-B]. Accordingly, we hold that the disallowance should be restricted only to ₹ 1,235/- and we direct the ld AO accordingly.
|