Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1916 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D - disallowance to the exempt income which formed part of the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find the case of the assessee is covered by virtue of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand [2018 (4) TMI 861 - ITAT PUNE]. The said ratio of the Tribunal is relevant to the facts of the present case for the proposition that “where the assessee had not received any tax free income during assessment year under appeal, no disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D was called for - the matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the applicability of relevant law and restrict the disallowance to the exempt income which formed part of the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed protanto. Claim of expenditure for the year under consideration but accounted for in the subsequent years - prior period expenses accounted in the subsequent years - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly applied the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Therefore, we are of the view that this issue should be remanded to file of AO. AO is directed to examine the details furnished by the assessee at page 4 of the paper book regarding the genuineness of expenditure and the reasons for not receiving the bills in time, and not including the expenses in the returns of income for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the case may be. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition on account of sale of scrap - understatement of sales - rates of scrap per Metric Tonne shown by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As perused the Metallurgical Guidelines issues by the Ministry of Mines in the Indian Minerals Yearbook, 2011 where the melting scrap for the year 2009-10 is indicated as 19133 per tonne. Considering the same, the rates of scrap per Metric Tonne shown by the assessee are within the prescribed limits. We hold that assessee has not understated the sale of scrap in any manner and AO failed to establish with cogent evidences. AO only proceeded to make addition on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition on this issue. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
|