TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2007-08. 2. Revenue in it s Ground No.1 is aggrieved that ld. CIT(Appeals) had restricted a disallowance of ₹ 2,20,15,787/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short The Act ) to ₹ 5,47,433/-. As against, this assessee in its Cross Objection aggrieved on the scaled down disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that Assessing Officer had assiduously applied section 14A alongwith Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for making the disallowance. Per contra, ld. A.R. submitted that section 14A could not have been applied at all in view of the decision of Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2006-07 as well as 2008-09. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the order relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. This Tribunal in Revenue s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.684/Kol/2012, following its own order for assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 2248/Kol/2010 had held that while computing book profit under Chapter XIV-B of the Act, section 14A had no application whatsoever. Respectfully following this decision, we dismiss Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue. 8. Vide it s Ground No. 3, Revenue is aggrieved that notional interest of ₹ 12,87,900/-on sticky loans added by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 9. Ld. Counsels for the assessee as well as the revenue point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, the addition is not sustainable for legal scrutiny and accordingly deleted . For the impugned assessment year also Revenue has no case that assessee had accounted as income any interest on sticky loans. Assesese having not accounted for any interest on sticky loans, we are of the view that ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in relying on the earlier orders of this Tribunal, and deleting the addition made. Ground No. 3 of Revenue s appeal stands dismissed. 11. Vide it s Ground No. 4, Revenue is aggrieved that ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted an addition of ₹ 1,46,80,553/- being interest income on investment made out of the foreign buyer s funds lying to the credit of the assessee. 12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d perused the orders of authorities below. The issue regarding disallowance on account of depreciation on plant and machinery purchased out of amounts withdrawn from NABARD had come up before this Tribunal in revenue s appeal for assessment year 2003-04. It was held as under by this Tribunal at paras 2-3 of its order :- 2. The revenue has taken following effective ground of appeal:- That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant and machinery purchased out of withdrawal from NABARD . 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the issue is squarely covered in fvour of the assessee by the ITAT Kolkata Bench s order in the case of ACIT -vs.- M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
