9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 is against the order of the CIT (A)-17, Mumbai dated 18.4.2013 for the AY 2008-2009. 3. In this appeal, Revenue raised couple of issues and they are (i) the allowability of exemption u/s 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and (ii) the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act instead of disallowing adhoc amount applying flat rate of 2% of the exempt income. 4. In connection with the first issue ie the claim of exemption u/s 10(1) of the Act, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts which include that the assessee, who is engaged in the business of production and sale of hybrid seed as well as manufacturing and selling of agro-chemical based products and filed the return of income declaring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belong to the assessee. Challenging the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT (A), who allowed the claim of the assessee. 2. On further appeals filed by the Revenue, the ITAT confirmed the order passed by the CIT (A) challenging the aforesaid order, the Revenue has filled these appeals. 3. Perusal of the order of the ITAT shows that the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the CIT (A) by recording finding of the fact that the assessee in fact carried on agricultural operations and that the orders passed to that effect in assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93 have been accepted by the Revenue. For earning agricultural income, it is not necessary that the assessee must own the land and it is enough if it is established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Rs. 15.71 Crs (rounded of) and claimed exemption by invoking the provisions of section 10(35) of the Act. AO applied the said Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 and disallowed a sum of Rs. 1.24 Crs (rounded of). AO reasoned that the assessee applied the said Rule while filing the return of income originally. Subsequently, assessee made a request for restricting the disallowance to 2% of the exempt income. AO denied the same and ignored the assessee's request during the assessment proceedings. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A) ie restricting the disallowance to 2% of the exempt income by relying on the finding of his predecessor in the AY 2007-2008, Ld DR for the Revenue submitted that the said principle of applying the flat r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09. In this appeal, assessee raised 4 grounds in toto. 11. At the outset, referring to the Ground nos. 3 and 4, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (A) failed to adjudicate the Ground no.3 and prematurely held that the issue raised in ground 7 as consequential without adjudicating the issue relating to the levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act. In this regard, he pleaded for remanding these two grounds (Gr. Nos.3 & 4) to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. He brought our attention to page 91 of the paper book, wherein the copy of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.3171/M/2012, dated 20.10.2015. Further, he submitted that the appeal for the AY 2007-08 was decided by the Tribunal and the same should also be conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
