TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Board Circular No.6/2016, dated 17.06.2016 was not appreciated by the CIT (A). It was fairly submitted that the said Circular was issued recently before the finalization or adjudication of the issues by the CIT (A). Ld AR also brought our attention to the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the AY 2010-2011 and AY 2008-2009 and submitted that these orders of the Tribunal were also not available to the CIT (A) at the relevant point of time. Considering the subsequent development, we find, the issue raised in ground no.2, in principle, is allowed. However, for examining the facts of the case, we remand this issue to the file of the CIT (A) to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194A of the IT Act. 3. (a) The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 4,55,00,856/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962. (b) The CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of invoking the Rule 8D(2) of IT Rules without recording his dissatisfaction with respect claim of the appellant and books of account of the appellant. 4. The CIT (A) erred in restricting the claim of Bad Debt to the extent of ₹ 9,93,193/- after being satisfied that the entire claim of ₹ 60,96,332/- as claimed by the appellant satisfies the conditions stipulated in section 36(2)(i) and the appellant is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). 2. At the outset, Ld Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouring the above prayer by the assessee. We have taken the similar view on the identical issue in the case of Surj it Singh Bagga HUF vs. ITO in I.T.A. No.403/M/2016 (AY 2006-07), dated 18.11.2016, wherein one us (AM) is a part to the said Tribunal‟s order. Considering the same, the issue is remanded and we direct the CIT (A) to pass a speaking order as per the provisions of section 256 of the Act after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground no.1 is allowed protanto. 4. Ground no.2 relates to the disallowance connected to the non-deduction of tax u/s 194A on the interest payments. On this issue, Ld Representatives of both the parties explained the facts and submitted that the Board Cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not to apply the 0.5% of the average investment. 7. After hearing both the parties, we find, it is a settled legal proposition at our level that the average investment desires exclusion of the non-dividend yielding investments in view of the decisions in the cases of (i) ACB India Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No. 615/2014 (Del. HC); (ii) M/s. Edelwiess Securities Limited vs. DCIT [ITA No. 7235/M/2011]; (iii) Coal India Limited [ITA No. 1032/Kol/2012]. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled to relief on this argument. Accordingly, the relevant grounds raised by the assessee are required to be allowed in principle. We order accordingly and direct the AO to re-calculate the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. Thus, gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
