Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1882 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance made on account of replacement of meters - HELD THAT:- Addition as consistently allowed by the ITAT and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case in assessee’s favour. The CIT(A) after relying on these decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court have deleted the disallowance - Thus we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on account of replacement of meters. Revised claim filed before the AO without filing revised return - revised claim with respect to long term capital gains earned on sale of units, which was not accepted by the AO on the plea that assessee has not filed revised return of income - claim of carry forward of long term capital loss - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) accepted assessee’s claim by observing that the revised claim filed before the AO without filing revised return are required to be admitted in view of the decision of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. We found that all the facts and figures are very much available before the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) has verified assessee’s claim wherein he found that since units were held for more than 12 months assessee was eligible for benefit of long term capital gain. Accordingly, he directed the AO to exclude the amount from the total short term capital gain and to allow carry forward of long term capital loss after having the detailed observation - Detailed finding so recorded by CIT(A) are as per material on record, which has not been controverted by bringing any positive material on record. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A). Disallowance u/s 14A - disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given relief with respect to the proportionate interest free funds alleged to be utilized for exempt investment. The CIT(A) has correctly relied on the judicial pronouncements of jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] for reaching to the conclusion that no disallowance of interest is warranted in case assessee is having sufficient interest free funds. From the record we also observe that assessee was having sufficient free funds, which was more than the investment so made. Accordingly, following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court as mentioned by CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance of interest under Rule 8D2(ii) of the IT Act. With regard to the assessee’s contention for excluding investment in subsidiaries while working out disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) find no merit in the action of CIT(A) and in so far as recently in the case of Maxoop Investment [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] held that investment in subsidiary should not be excluded for working out disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Act. Accordingly, we reverse the order of CIT(A) on this issue and upheld the order of AO. Computation of book profit of 115JB - HELD THAT:- Issue under consideration is covered by the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein it was held that provisions u/s.115JB is not applicable to the electricity supply company. In the instant case, the assessee has followed the accounting policies under the Electricity Supply Act and prepared its accounts in view of those very policies. Accordingly, assessee did not prepare the accounts in accordance with Part II and Part III of schedule VI of the Companies Act as the same is not applicable, hence, provisions u/s.115JB were not applicable in assessee’s case. No infirmity in the order of CIT(A).
|