Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 497 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) against enhanced income - HELD THAT:- As established beyond doubt that the re–opening of assessment is not on the basis of any tangible material but on a mere change of information. AO has re–opened the assessment after expiry of four years there is no allegation either in the assessment order or anywhere else stating that the escapement of income was due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts relating to his income truly and correctly. Accordingly, the condition enshrined in section 147 is not fulfilled. For the aforesaid reasons, we agree with Commissioner (Appeals) that the re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act in the present case is invalid. Deduction u/s 80P(2) against enhanced income due to disallowance of capital expenditure - HELD That:- in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee. As regards the other deductions claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the Assessing Officer, we fully agree with learned Commissioner (Appeals) that since such disallowances were in course of assessee’s regular business activities, they will only enhance the business profit of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee will be entitled to claim deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of such enhanced income. Accordingly, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. Disallowance under section 14A - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the details filed, we are satisfied that the assessee has sufficient own fund to make the investment. Therefore, no disallowance on account of interest expenditure can be made. Further, in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in case of Bank, investments are held as stock–in–trade. Hence, it becomes a business activity of the assessee. That being the case, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can otherwise also be made. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI]
|