TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al has upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) which deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules r/w section 14A of the Act - the assessee had itself added portfolio management expenditure incurred for maintaining portfolio of the assessee and the assessee has added expenditure of portfolio management services voluntarily, then if it is found that no interest expenditure stood debited in the P&L account, Rule 8D r/w section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked - the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly upheld part addition in this regard and another part of the addition has been deleted on justified grounds – there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 524/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2013 - Shri J. S. Reddy And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-XV, New Delhi dated 29.11.20912 in Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble High Court by the department against these orders. On specific query from the Bench, the DR fairly accepted that to the best of his knowledge, there is no order of Hon'ble High Court modifying or setting aside above orders of ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench (supra) in assessee's own appeals for the immediately preceding three years. 5. On careful reading of above orders of ITAT, we observe that in assessee's own appeal for AY 2006-07, the Department raised grounds pertaining to disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses and disallowance on account of excess depreciation on furniture, fixtures and plants and machinery. The Tribunal has decided both the issues in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by dismissing the appeal of the department with following observations:- "8. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. It is seen that the assessee had entered into a Licence Agreement with Remfry Sagar, for use of office space by them, at the 6th to 9th floors in Millennium Plaza, Gurgaon belonging to the assessee. On this let out, the assessee had received Rs.2,39,49,416/- as rent (called "Licence Fee" by the assessee). The question is as to whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee and the assessee has shown it as income. 9. In these facts, the Ld. CIT (A) rightly observed that the reimbursement and 25% mark up were different from the rental income, separately shown by the assesssee at Rs.2,39,49,416/-, on which, statutory deduction of 30% had been claimed u/s 24(a) of the Act. 10. From the above, it is evident that there is no error whatsoever in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). It has rightly been observed that there was no separate claim of repair and maintenance and depreciation by the assessee. The reimbursement and 25% mark up had already been offered by the assessee to tax. The reimbursements have been found on deductions claimed in the profit and loss account on account of repair and maintenance of building, furniture and depreciation claimed on computers, furniture and fixtures, vehicles and office equipment provided to Remfry Sagar for use. The Assessing Officer was, as such, in error to hold that it was a case of double deduction. The Ld. CIT (A) also took specific note of the fact that as per clause (6) (b) of the Rent Agreement, the reimbursement for repair and maintenance as well as electricity, power expenses, etc. had to be made to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that until and unless the order of ITAT is modified or set aside by the higher forum, the same is binding in the subsequent proceedings of the Tribunal as a judgment of coordinate bench. 10. From a glance at the order of ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.3915/Del/2011 dated 30.3.2012, we observe that ground no. 4 of the departmental appeal had been rejected by ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench with following observations:- "5. So far as regards Ground No. 4, the Department submits that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,14,444/- made on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 6. Here, again, we do not find any fault with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) while deleting the addition made. Undisputedly, as per the Profit and Loss Account and balance sheet of the assessee, there were resources and surplus of Rs. 47.52 crores. There were share capital of Rs.12.56 crores. The investment of Rs.50.96 crores, therefore, stood fully covered. No interest costs have been incurred by the assessee on any borrowings for the purpose of investment. Besides, there was no other expenditure incurred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
