TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we allow this issue of assessee’s appeal. Disallowance of administrative expense under Rule 8D(2)(iii) - Held that:- When a query was put to the learned Counsel that once the assessee itself has disallowed the sum of ₹ 37,38,476/-, Ld Counsel narrated that there is no estoppel against law and the income wrongly declared under wrong notion or under mistaken notion can be deleted. Thus we restrict the disallowance at ₹ 3,32,645/- being administrative expense under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. See case of Tata Industries Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1011 - ITAT MUMBAI] - ITA No. 3307/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Assessee : Anuj Kisnadwala, AR For The Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance by netting of interest expenses i.e. he has consider net interest of ₹ 34,05,831/- being (₹ 80,68,847- ₹ 20,71,233 ₹ 25,91,783). This netting was allowed by CIT(A) on the basis of remand report of the AO dated 25-10-2013. Aggrieved now, assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) on account of interest should be made as assessee s own funds are enough to cover up the value of investment as is evident from the balance sheet enclosed with the submissions. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the actual fig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is deleted, administrative expenses remains at ₹ 3,32,645/- for which assessee itself has disallowed as sum of ₹ 37,38,476/-. On this, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this disallowance by assessee i.e. suo moto disallowance at ₹ 37,38,476/- need not be made because there is no other expenses except a sum of ₹ 3,32,645/-. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that at the best, the other expenses of ₹ 3,32,645/- can be disallowed. When a query was put to the learned Counsel that once the assessee itself has disallowed the sum of ₹ 37,38,476/-, Ld Counsel narrated that there is no estoppel against law and the income wrongly declared under wrong notion or under mistaken notion can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve circumstances, the question before the Hon ble Supreme Court was Where on the facts found by the authorities below a question of law arises (though not raised before the authorities) which bears on the tax liability of the assessee, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the same? The Hon ble Supreme Court while answering the said question observed that under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, the power of the Tribunal in dealing with the appeals is expressed in the widest possible terms; the power of the Tribunal under section 254 is not restricted only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); that both the assessee as well as the department have a right to file an appeal/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed. The words could not have been raised must be construed liberally and not strictly. There may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case must be considered on its own facts. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Chandrashekhar Bahirwani ITA No.7810/M/2010 and 6599/M/2011 vide order dated 17.06.2015 while deciding the question as to whether the income cannot be assessed less than the returned income has observed as under: 5. Now coming to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), that income cannot be assessed less than the returned income, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim is not barred. The Hon ble High Court has further observed that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT (2006) 157 Taxman 1, relating to the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain such claim by way of additional ground. Even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the claim of the assessee in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction under section 250 of the Act. Moreover, if the assessee is, otherwise, entitled to a claim of deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
