Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1713 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance @ 0.5% of the average investments u/s 14A read with rule 8D2(iii) towards administrative and other expenses - HELD THAT:- The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2017 (11) TMI 1854 - ITAT MUMBAI] decide the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that no disallowance under section 14A is called for. The AO is directed accordingly. Thus the assessee’s appeal is allowed and ground no.1 of the revenue appeal is dismissed. Disallowance of amortization of Employee Stock Plan (ESOP) expenses - Addition made by the AO without appreciating the fact that it is a capital expenditure incurred for the purpose of business being employee compensation cost - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the issue needs further verification about the terms and conditions of ESOP issue by the assessee .Therefore, in the interest of justice the matter is restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication, who would afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee Disallowance on account of broken period interest which was treated as capital expenditure by the AO - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) allowed the issue in favour of the assessee by following the order of his predecessor in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Citi Bank [2008 (8) TMI 766 - SUPREME COURT] Fresh issue admitted before the appellate authority - New claim of deduction under section 35D can be admitted first time which was not raised before the AO at all - HELD THAT:- After perusing the appellate order, we find that the appellate authority has passed the order after following the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Grasim Industries Ltd. [2016 (2) TMI 1124 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] has been considered and it was held that the fresh issue can be admitted before the appellate authority. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the same is upheld.
|