TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- The similar addition was also deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) for the Asst. Year: 2011-12 which was further sustained by the Co-ordinate Bench at Amritsar and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) while relying upon the order passed by the predecessor for the Asst. Year: 2011-12 as well as while analyzing various case laws, deleted the addition under challenge treating the same as Revenue expenditure. Disallowance u/s 14A - addition in respect of investment of ₹ 3,55,00,000/- in shares holding on the reason that the same is not in a proximity to the business of the assessee company and used the business funds on dividends which is exempt income - Held that:- In the instant case, the assessee company had interest free funds of ₹ 52,84,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 2,56,978/- out of total of ₹ 17,84,680/- on account of expenses found to be verifiable during the assessment proceedings. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 33,43,327/- made by the AO on account of development of Road by treating the same as capital expenditure. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 24,58,353/- made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A when the assessee has utilized business funds for investment in share which is not in proximity to the business of the assessee company and used the business as funds to earn dividends which is exempt income. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law and fact in deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound No.1 stands dismissed. 4.1 Ground No.2 relates to the deletion of addition of ₹ 33,43,327/- made by the AO on account of development of road by treating the same as capital expenditure. The similar addition was also deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) for the Asst. Year: 2011-12 which was further sustained by the Co-ordinate Bench at Amritsar and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) while relying upon the order passed by the predecessor for the Asst. Year: 2011-12 as well as while analyzing various case laws, deleted the addition under challenge treating the same as Revenue expenditure. As the Co-ordinate Bench has already uphold the said disallowance in ITA No.479(Asr)/2015 relevant to the A.Y.2011-12, hence, the ground No.2 stands dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back to Assessing Officer to ascertain as to whether there was any exempt income was not if there was no exempt income then following the judicial precedents cited above no disallowance can be made and if there is exempt income then disallowance can be made as per facts and circumstances and legal provisions and after considering the case laws relied upon by assessee. In the present case on the basis of the facts stated in the assessment order and in the appellant submission it is found that there was no exempt income in the case of the appellant and thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the of CIT Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. followed by Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 43B of the Act was interpreted by this Court vide judgment delivered on 5.9.2006 in Avery Cycle Industries (P) Ltd s case (supra) and on 7.3.2007 delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement Ltd s case (supra). The said decisions were prior in point of time to the decisions of the Tribunal on 5.11.2007 and 23.11.2007. Once that was so, applying the enunciation of law as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Saurashtra Kutch Singh Gurbachan 2013.09.11 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Stock Exchange Ltd s case (supra), the Tribunal was in error in declining to rectify the mistake which was apparent on the face of the record. In the said case decided by the Hon ble Punjab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to ESI and Provident Fund as the same had been deposited prior to the filing of the return under Section 139 (1) of the Act. Relevant observation is reproduced herein below :- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the issue raised herein finally stands settled by the Apex Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) and this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Rai Agro Industries Ltd. Sangrur), decided on 30.11.2010 wherein it has been held that Second Proviso to Section 43B of the Act omitted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.4.2004 was clarificatory in nature and was to operate retrospectively. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
