TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fits of assessee for years under consideration. As order passed u/s 143(3) by Ld. AO is not before us today. Accordingly, these Additional Grounds though, arising out of assessment proceedings, deserves to be admitted however stands dismissed as not arising out of the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) impugned before us. Disallowance of harvesting transportation charges - non deduction of TDS u/s 194C - assessee paid to the harvester on behalf of farmer and therefore, was not liable to deduct any TDS - no appeal against order of CIT(A) in earlier year on same issue - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, identical issue for assessment year 2011-12 has not been raised by revenue, meaning thereby, view adopted by Ld. CIT (A) stands accepted as on date. It is observed that for year under consideration, Ld.CIT(A) followed the view of his predecessor to allow claim of assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Ld.CIT(A). - ITA Nos.597 & 598(Bang)/2019, ITA No.772(Bang)/2019 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2019 - Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member For the Appellant : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14A could not be extended and read into section 115J falling under Chapter-XII-B of the Act. 6. The assessee relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court (HC) in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd., wherein it was held that disallowance under section 14A read with section 8D made by the ITO cannot be added while computing book profit under MAT provisions. 7. On the second issue, the assessee, contended that while considering the average value of investment, only those investment were to be considered that have yielded exempt income and not those investments that did not yield any exempt income during the year. The assessee relied on catena of decisions, including the decision of the jurisdictional HC in the case of Holcim India, wherein it has been held that unless and until the assessee has actually earned income during the relevant year and that does not form part of the total income, section 14A of the Act, would have no application. 8. Disallowance of expenditure cannot be add to book profits and the action taken by the learned AO is contrary to the provisions of sec.115J of Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Without prej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility under the five heads of income under normal provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 14A could not be extended and read into section 115JB, falling under Chapter XII-B of the Act. 4. The Assessee relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court (HC) in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. wherein it was held that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D made by the TO cannot be added while computing book profit under MAT provisions. 5. On the second issue, the Assessee contended that while considering the average value of investment, only those investments were to be considered that have yielded exempt income and not those investments that did not yield any exempt income during the year. The Assessee relied on catena of decisions, including the decision of the jurisdictional HC in the case of Holcim India, wherein it has been held that unless and until the Assessee has actually earned income during the relevant year and that does not form part of the total income, section 14A of the Act would have no application. 6. The learned assessing officer also erred in Charging the interest under section 234C, 244A and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The authorities below erred in law in not appreciating that the rigours of section 14A of the Act are not attracted when no exempt income is earned during the year and accordingly, the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act is not sustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The authorities blow failed to appreciate that it is settled position in law that consent cannot confer jurisdiction, hence the impugned order passed is bad in law and void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave of this Hon ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete o amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity. It has been submitted by both sides that facts for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are identical as Ld.AO in order passed under section 154 of the Act, wherein addition to book profits was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ratio that no disallowance can be computed under section 14 A read with Rule 8D, shall apply while computing Book profits u/s115JB. It is observed that this Tribunal in case of Windsor Gardens Private limited vs DCIT (supra), applied same analogy for computing book profit under section 115 JB Explanation 1 Clause (f). Respectfully following same, we direct Ld. AO to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 14A while computing book profits. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee in these appeals stands allowed. 8. The Additional Ground raised by assessee is in respect of disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act, as there is no exempt income earned during the year. It is observed that assessee raised this issue in an appeal against order passed under section 154, where addition has been made to the book profits of assessee for years under consideration. As order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by Ld. AO is not before us today. Accordingly, these Additional Grounds though, arising out of assessment proceedings, deserves to be admitted however stands dismissed as not arising out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
