TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. In view of the finding of the fact recorded - Decided in favour of assessee. 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 - Held that:- Assessee submitted that the law on this issue has under gone number of changes so for as the applicability of the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D is concerned. There is a need for examining the various aspects of the issue such as own funds v/s borrowed funds; dividend yielding investment v/s other strategic investments, the dividend income which is chargeable to tax otherwise etc. Therefore, he pleaded for remanding this issue also to the file of the AO for adjudication. We accordingly find merit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d filed the return of income declaring the total income of ₹ 64,96,07,840/-. In the assessment, AO denied the claim of deduction u/s 10(1) of the Act in respect of the income from the said agricultural activity and ₹ 50,03,24,246/- is treated as 'business income' of the assessee. After adjustment of the same qua the expenditure of ₹ 2,88,09,147/-, the disallowance is computed to ₹ 47,15,15,099/-. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority. 5. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) allowed the ground in favour of the assessee relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee must own the land and it is enough if it is established that the agricultural organizations have been actually carried on by the assessee. In view of the finding of the fact recorded by the ITAT that even in the past, the assessee has been carrying agricultural operations in the obsence of any material to the contrary, the decision of the ITAT cannot be faulted. 4. In the result, we see no merit in all these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 4.3. In view of the above, and since there is no change in the facts, the grounds of appeal of the assessee is allowed following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision. 6. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007-2008, Ld DR for the Revenue submitted that the said principle of applying the flat rate of 2% of the exempt income is not applicable to the year under consideration as the said Rule 8D is applicable for the AY 2008-09 onwards. Relying on the decision of the CIT (A) for the AY 2007-08, CIT (A) erred in law. Therefore, the Ld DR argued for restoring the disallowance of ₹ 1.24 lakhs as was originally offered by the assessee in the return of income. 8. Responding to the above Ld DR's argument, Shri Rajan Vora, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the law on this issue has under gone number of changes so for as the applicability of the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D is concerned. There is a need for examining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the appeal for the AY 2007-08 was decided by the Tribunal and the same should also be considered wherever requires and applicable. We order accordingly. Thus, Ground nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Regarding Ground nos.1 and 2, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee received some consideration on transfer of certain assets to Devgen NV. Further, assessee assessee also received consideration for transfer of other assets from Sinochem International (overseas PTE Ltd). Assessee treated the same as long term capital gains. In the assessment, AO treated the same as short term capital gains and the same is confirmed by the CIT (A). Therefore, the assessee is in appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
