9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, for the Assessment Year 2013-14 & dt. 04/03/2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 5 (five) days in filing of both these appeals by the revenue. After perusing the petition for condonation, we are convinced that the department was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal on time. Hence the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We first take the appeal of the revenue for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 4. On Ground No. 1, we find that the ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2008-09 - Whether, where Assessing Officer was not satisfied with correctness of claim made by assessee that no expenditure was incurred in relation to such income which did not form part of total income, he could invoke section 14A only after recording satisfaction on that issue with regard to accounts of assessee - Held, yes -Whether disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) can be computed only by taking into consideration average value of investment appearing in balance sheet as on first and last day of previous year from which income not falling within total income has been earned - Held, yes - Whether, where Assessing Officer had taken into consideration entire investment made by assessee during relevant year for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was purchase of goods, he held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act, does not apply. Regarding the payment to Jivan Ratan Chatterjee Legal, he submitted that the payment of Rs. 31517/-, was towards advocate fees and service tax and as the advocate fees was less than Rs. 30,000/-, Section 194J of the Act, does not apply. Similarly, he has analysed each and every payment and came to a conclusion that provision of tax deduction at source do not apply. 8.1. The ld. D/R, could not contradict these factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the same and dismiss Ground No. 5 of the revenue. 9. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. 10. In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1469/Kol/2019; Assessment Year 2013-14, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also, as for the Assessment Year 2013-14, the ld. CIT(A) has come to a factual conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D of the Rules. Consistent with the view taken by us for the Assessment Year 2013-14, we uphold the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the revenue as the ld. D/R was not able to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction as required by law, prior to invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 14. Ground No. 2, is regarding the deletion of an addition made on account of sale of rights in property and carry forward of loss to future years. 15. The assessee has sold the rights in property in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total area was 50051 sq. ft. Assessee purchased entire purchase consideration. It was reflected in the Audited Accounts as well. It shown as investment. Assessee declared total receipt of Rs. 16,10,57,228/ - as consideration. The last date of payment in all 37 cases/flats was 18.02.2015. This after 3 years. This position was accepted in earlier years. 13. Thus following the decision in Radha Soami Satsang. I have no option but to go by the decision in Radha Soami Satsang on the principles of consistency. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Calcutta ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 990/Kolkata/2013)." 16. We find no infirmity in the same. Hence we dismiss these grounds of the revenue. 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Act. 19. The ld. CIT(A) at para 35 & 36 of his order held as follows:- "35. I have gone through the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of M/s. ITC Limited vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata in ITA No. 685/Kol/2014. In para 12, the following has been stated by the Tribunal - "12. The assessee's additional last/ substantive ground avers that it is entitled for the educations secondary higher education cess as overhead deduction amounting to Rs. 423618317.0 u/s 37 of the Act. We not that hon'ble Rajasthan high court's decision in DB Income Tax Appeal No. 52/ Kolkata/ 2018 M/s Chambal Fertilizers Ltd. vs. DCIT decided on 31.07.2018 takes into account CBDT circular dated 18.05.1967 for holding such cess(es) to be allowable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
