TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding on the availability of the assessee’s own fund to meet the requirements of the fresh investment made by the assessee during the year as well as the expenditure claimed by the assessee which can be attributable to earning the exempt income. Since, there is fresh investment during the year to the tune of more than ₹ 14 crores, therefore, the decision for the earlier years cannot be applied without considering the relevant facts. Hence, in the interest of justice we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the above observation. Needless to say the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order. - ITA No. 1133/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2017 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 3. We have heard the ld. DR as well as ld. AR and considered the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of ₹ 15,03,442/- on account of the contribution PF and ESI on the ground that the assessee has not deposited the employee s contribution within stipulated time prescribed in respective Acts. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the amount has been deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing the return of income and therefore the matter is covered by the decision of Hon ble Jurisdiction High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 236 ITR 17 as well as in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee vide order dated 22nd August, 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that these issues were considered by this Tribunal in assessee s own case and thereafter the Hon ble Jurisdiction High Court in assessee s own case decided this issue in ITA No. 202/2017 vide order dated 22nd August, 2017 in para 4.3 is as under:- 4.3 The issue No. 3 is regarding 14A. Now the issue is governed by the decision of Supreme Court the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr. reported in 394 ITR 449 wherein it has been held as under:- 36. Section 14A as originally enacted by the Finance Act of 2001 with effect from 1.4.1962 is in the same form and language as currently appearing in Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act. Sections 14A (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on such consdierqation that findings have been recorded that the expenditure in question bore no relation to the earning of the dividend income and hence the Assessee was entitled to the benefit of full exemption claimed on account of dividend income. 37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with the Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing. Whether satisfied with the claim of the Assessee. Whether such determination is to be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, the need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case. In this regard we may remind ourselves of what has been observed by this Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR (SC) 321 [At Page 329]. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be examined by considering the assessee s own interest free fund as well as the borrowings by the assessee which could be used for investment. Further, there is a movement in the investment portfolio of the assessee during the year under consideration then it is necessary that the assessee took the decision of selling as well as fresh investment. The assessee is a company and therefore the decision of making the investment of huge amount is taken at the highest level of the management and thus it cannot be accepted that there is no expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income from the investment made during the year. All these relevant aspects are required to be verified and examined for the purpose of ascertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
