Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Aptech Limited Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–8 (1) , Mumbai

2017 (12) TMI 307 - ITAT MUMBAI

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- It appears from the orders of the Departmental Authorities that the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D has been made considering the fact that investments made by the assessee in the equity shares of companies would give rise to exempt income. Thus, prima–facie, assessee’s claim / contention that it has not earned any exempt income by way of dividend in the relevant previous year appears to be correct. That being the case, following the decision of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

per section 43B(f) of the Act, which was introduced to the statute by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April 2002, any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee is allowable in the relevant previous year, wherein, such amount was actually paid. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim and allow it in the assessment year, wherein, the assessee has actually paid the amount towards .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tten–off. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the assessee, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine assessee’s claim and allow it in the year of actual write–off subject to fulfillment of other conditions of the Act. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA no.6654/Mum./2013 - Dated:- 4-12-2017 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S.C. Tiwari a/w Ms. Rutuja Pawar For The Revenue : Rajesh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpugned assessment year on 9th October 2010, declaring nil income after claiming carry forward of current year s loss of ₹ 10,81,32,278. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on verifying the Balance Sheet of the previous year found that the assessee has invested in equity shares of company, the income from which will not form part of total income. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why disallowance of expenditure under section 14A r/w rule 8D should not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ging the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority, the assessee submitted that, since, it had sufficient interest free funds available for making the investments in equity shares, disallowance of interest expenditure should not be made. As far as administrative expenditure is concerned, it was submitted, no specific expenditure was incurred for investment activities. After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not find merit in the sam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The specific contention of the assessee before us is, in the relevant previous year, it has not earned any exempt income by way of dividend. In fact, the learned Counsel for the assessee has made this contention in writing before us. On a perusal of the impugned assessment order or even the order of the first appellate authority, we do not find any finding of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ious year appears to be correct. That being the case, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v/s CIT, 378 ITR 33 and the consistent view of the different Benches of the Tribunal, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged disallowance of deduction claimed of ₹ 22,70,225, on account of provision for leave encashment. 9. Brief facts are, during .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellate authority, he also confirmed the disallowance. 11. The learned Authorised Representative submitted before us that the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow assessee s claim of deduction on actual payment. 12. Learned Departmental Representative supported the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, deduction claimed by the assessee was disallowed on the reasoning that the amount .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssment year, wherein, the assessee has actually paid the amount towards leave encashment. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Grounds no.3, 4 and 5 being general in nature do not require adjudication. 15. Besides the aforesaid grounds, the assessee has raised following effective additional grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant be allowed deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts of ₹ 5,95,24,304 in computation of book pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed. 16. Additional grounds no.4 and 5 being general in nature do not require adjudication. 17. As far as additional grounds no.1, 2 and 3 are concerned, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, adjudication of these grounds do not require investigation into fresh facts and can be decided on the basis of facts and material already available on record. Hence, additional grounds may be admitted for adjudication. 18. Learned Departmental Representative opposing admission of additional ground .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,24,304, was claimed as deduction by the assessee while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act for the assessment year 2004-05 and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was sustained by the Tribunal. It is the contention of the learned Authorised Representative before us that in view of subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v/s CIT, [2009] 323 ITR 126 (SC), the assessee has raised the additional ground. We find that in assessment year .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hus, as could be seen, the issue raised by the assessee did not require investigation into fresh facts and can be decided on the basis of facts already available in the records of the Department. Therefore, we admit this additional ground for adjudication. As far as the merits of the issue is concerned, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, the Tribunal did not allow assessee s claim as it was in the nature of provision. He submitted, in the impugned assessment year also, the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ional grounds no.2 and 3 are concerned, the facts are, the assessee on 31st March 2009, paid an amount of ₹ 1.60 crore through challan towards payment of advance tax for the assessment year 2009-10. Subsequently, assessee vide letter dated 20th February 2009, stated before the Assessing Officer that the said amount was wrongly paid towards advance tax for assessment year 2009-10 and the assessee actually intended to pay the said amount for assessment year 2010-11. He further submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d adjusted it against the tax liability for the assessment year 2010-11. Since, the assessee did not claim credit for the amount of ₹ 1.60 crore in assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer while processing the return of income for the said assessment year did not give credit for the said amount. Whereas, while processing the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 under section 143(1) on 15th April 2011, the Assessing Officer did not allow credit for the amount of ₹ 1. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

crore in the assessment year 2009-10. As it appears, the rectification application filed by the assessee remained cold shelved and while giving effect to the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order arising out of regular assessment done under section 143(3) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30th September 2015, held that the tax paid of ₹ 1.60 crore can only be credited towards advance tax for the assessment year 2009-10 and not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ver, the Assessing Officer has not taken care to atleast look into the claim of the assessee. Further, even after the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 again requesting the Assessing Officer to allow credit for tax paid of ₹ 1.60 crore in assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer was least bothered to look into the assessee s claim. Only after the disposal of assessee s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 by the first appellate authority, the Assessing Office .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version