9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the disallowance of Rs. 23,28,214/- disallowed by the A.O. u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,76,17,625/- made by the A.O. on account of capital gain. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 2. Briefly stated that facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : AO noticed that the assessee has shown dividend income of Rs. 21,90,904/- under the head 'other receipts' on the cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the AO by relying on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI (2018) 402 ITR 640(SC). However, on the other hand the Ld. AR for the assessee contended that AO proceeded to invoke the provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D without recording his dissatisfaction as to the working of computation of income given by the assessee that no expenses have been incurred by the assessee to earn the exempt income and also relied upon MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI (supra). 8. The Ld. CIT(A) after perusing the P & L account has proceeded to hold that all the expenditure debited to P & L Account have been suo moto added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no expenditure has been incurred in' relation to income which does not form part of the total income, the Assessing Officer will have to verify the correctness of such claim. In case, the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the claim of the assessee with regard to the expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, the Assessing Officer is to accept the claim of the assessee in so far as the quantum of disallowance under section 14A is concerned. In such eventuality, the Assessing Officer cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure for the purposes of section 14A(1). In case, the Assessing Officer is not, on the basis of the objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute that the assessee has already offered capital gain on the sale proceed of Rs. 21.75 crore. 11. However assessee has deducted Rs. 4,62,50,000/- the amount of sale proceeds forfeited from the cost of acquisition of the property in question u/s 51 of the Act and treated the excess of forfeited amount and cost of assets i.e. 2,76,17,652/- as capital receipts. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue by discussing section 51 of the Act and has also reached the conclusion that u/s 56(2) a new subsection (IX) has been inserted with effect from 01.04.2015 to treat the forfeited sum as income from other sources, but it is not applicable to the year under assessment which is A.Y 2010-11. 13. A co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in case cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
