TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-09. Assessee was not aggrieved by the direction of CIT (A) to verify the claim of the assessee whether such guarantee fees relates to the capital work in progress for the AY 2008-09. But the assessee for the year under consideration has challenged the direction of CIT-A verify whether such guarantee fee relates to the capital working progress. As the assessee did not challenge such direction of CIT(A) for the assessment Year 2008-09 before the ITAT, it implies that such direction has reached to its finality for that assessment year. Therefore, there was no dispute for the ITAT for the AY 2008-09 for the direction issued by the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, it cannot be inferred that the order of the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09 has merged with the order of ITAT insofar the direction issued by CIT(A) to verify the claim of the assessee for the guarantee fees whether such fees relates to the capital work in progress. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the issue raised by the assessee is a covered issue by the order of the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as contended by the ld. AR for the assessee. Grounds of appeal of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OR income from other sources - HELD THAT:- Revenue has failed to controvert the aforesaid contention and the findings of the ld. CIT(A),therefore after considering the material fact that interest earned on loan and advances from deposit placed with Mega Power Project towards its sharing of power and interest of UL pool account received from M/s. Power Grid Corporation India Ltd were directly related to the business of the assessee therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. - ITA No(s) 11/Ahd/2013, 37/Ahd/2013, 3103/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2020 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri M. K. Patel Shri M. J. Shah AR's For the Revenue : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT DR ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: In this bunch of appeals two appeals have been filed by the Assessee and one appeal has been filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10which are arising from the separate order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I Baroda dated 29.10.2012 19.09.2014, in the assessment proceedings under Section143(3) under Section 250 r.w.s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961for A.Y. 2009-10 (in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition of ₹ 50,85,00,000/- out of the total addition of ₹ 238,20,40,627/- made by the AO under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule though the assessee has not incurred any expenditure in the earning of dividend income. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a limited company and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of electricity. The assessee in the year under consideration declared dividend income of ₹ 1,116.61 lakhs on the investments which was shown as on 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009 at ₹ 5,58,204.74 lakhs and ₹ 6,64,856.04 lakhs respectively in its balance sheet. The assessee at the same time has claimed the deduction on account of interest expenses amounting to ₹ 13,122.56 Lacs in the year under consideration on the borrowed fund amounting to ₹ 3,28,754.64 lakhs. 4.1 However, the assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that it has not incurred any expenditure in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. 9. On the contrary, the Learned DR raised no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance to the provisions of law. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, there is no ambiguity that the Learned CIT (A) has decided the issue on hand after relying on the order of his predecessor for the Assessment Year 2008-09 which was subsequently set aside by the ITAT for fresh adjudication. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as under: 8. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In these grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue challenge the action of ld. CIT(A). We observe that an addition of ₹ 152.46 crores was sustained, made by ld. Assessing Officer which was sustained to ₹ 61.46 crores by ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, assessee has raised the ground against the sustained addition of ₹ 61.46 crores whereas Revenue has challenged the deletion of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares. Learned DR has also informed that in A.Y. 2007-08, the addition of similar nature was upheld by learned CIT(A). He has thus pleaded that the issue being legal in nature which has emerged from the facts already on record, therefore, the additional ground deserves to be admitted for adjudication. 4. After hearing both the sides, the additional ground of the Revenue Department is hereby admitted for adjudication. At the outset, it is worth to mention that the impugned addition of ₹ 18796.82 lacs was made by the AO without having any discussion in respect of the applicability of Section 14A of the IT Act. Likewise, learned CIT(A) has also not discussed the applicability of the provisions of Section 14A of IT Act, however, after considering the merits of the case, deleted the addition. With this clarification, we have examined the facts and the issue as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 26.12.2008. It was noted by the AO that the assessee had claimed a huge amount of interest expenditure of ₹ 19360.59 lacs, as per the following bifurcation. (Rs. in lacs) Parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn interest income of ₹ 55.59 lacs and dividend income of ₹ 508.18 lacs. Hence, against the interest expenditure of ₹ 19360.59 lacs assessee has grown interest and dividend income of ₹ 563.77 lacs. Thus, net disallowance is made of ₹ 18796.82 lacs. 5. Being aggrieved the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority who has decided the issue in assessee's favour in the following manner: Thus, the only test to be applied is that of commercial expediency . In the instant case, it is seen that no investment was made by the assessee company by using borrowed funds.The entire investment, except minor investment of ₹ 11.25 lacs was inherited in the demerger exercise. The investment in shares was due to the restructuring carried out at the behest of GOG. The investments were in the form of shares of subsidiary companies as pan of the financial restructuring plan approved by the Government of Gujarat which was integral to the demerger. This was clearly commercially expedient for the appellant company. The business itself was viable only under the plan of restructuring, which required the company to have cross-holdings in the un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lting company in such a manner that all the property of the undertaking/unit being transferred by the demerged company immediately before the demerger, which becomes the property of the resulting company by virtue of the demerger. Therefore, it was necessary for the AO to examine the balance sheet of the demerged company and the position of the accounts of the undertaking which is demerged with the resulting company. The AO has to examine the liabilities related to the said undertaking whether being transferred under the scheme of arrangement which were in existence immediately before the demerger. The AO has to examine the value of the property in the books of accounts immediately before the demerger which was transferred. The AO has also to examine the financial position of the resulting company , as defined u/s.2(41A) of IT Act. In general, an undertaking of the demerged company is transferred in a demerger scheme and as a result a resulting company comes into existence. The resulting company in consideration of such transfer of an undertaking ofthe demergerd company issues shares to the share holders of the demerged company. Therefore, the responsibility of the resulting comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te interest attributable to dividend income the ratio of dividend income and total sales have been taken though there was no direct relation between the two. The Assessing Officer had thus made the calculation after taking into account the proportion of the interest on the ratio between the investment in shares and total assets including investment in shares. Apart from this, there is nothing in the assessment order which can establish the nexus of utilization of borrowed interest-bearing funds diverted towards investment in debentures. But there are other discussions in this very assessment order wherein the provisions of section 36(l)(iii) of the Act have also been touched upon. The Assessing Officer was expected to correlate the said discussion with the exempted dividend income u/s. 10(33) of the Act. As far as the law pronounced in this regard is concerned, first of all, we have to follow a latest decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court pronounced in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT in Income tax Appeal No.626 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.758 of 2010 order dated 12/08/2010, { now reported as 328 ITR 81(Bom) } wherein the Hon'ble High Court has uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned out of investments made out of own funds considered. Moreover, under Section 14A, expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income can be disallowed only if the assessing officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the expenditure claimed by the assessee. In the present case, no such exercise has been carried out and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter. b) Section 14A was introduced by the Finance Act 2001 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962. However, in view of the proviso to that Section, the disallowance thereunder could be effectively made from assessment year 2001-2002 onwards. The fact that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicability of Section 14A in its proper perspective, for assessment year 2001 -2002 would not bar the Tribunal from considering disallowance under Section 14A in assessment year 2002-2003. c) The decisions reported in Sridev Enterprises (supra), Munjal Sales Corporation (supra) and Radhasoami Satsang (supra) holding that there must be consistency and definiteness in the approach of the revenue would not apply to the facts of the present case, because of the material change introduced by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as inserted by the Income Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 are not ultra vires the provisions of Section 14A, more particularly sub section (2) and do not offend Article 14 of the Constitution;; v) The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which have been notified with effect from 24th March, 2008 shall apply with effect from Assessment Year 2008- 09; (vi) Even prior to Assessment Year 2008-09, when Rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 14A. For that purpose, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income under the Act. The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record; vii) The proceedings for Assessment year 2002-03 shall stand remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall determine as to whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to dividend incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued a Notification No. S.O. 547(E) on 24-3-2008 (299 ITR (ST) 88). This notification amends the Income-tax Rules by insertion of a new Rule 8D providing for a Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income . Reading this Rule it is evident that the Rule provides for disallowance of not only direct expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income but also for disallowance of proportionate indirect expenditure. This is clearly contrary to the main objective with which S. 14A was enacted. 2.2 Broadly stated, the new Rule 8D provides as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company had total investment of ₹ 5580.20 crores considering all investment in subsidiary companies at ₹ 5336.43 crores, investment in other companies at ₹ 243.69 crores and balance in petty investment. (ii) Opening balance of investment as on 1.4.2007 stood at ₹ 5477.16 crores. (iii) Few investments were made during Financial Year 2005-06 to 2007-08 and in subsidiary companies and funds for the same were partly received from State Government as equity and remaining from net profit earned. (iv) Interest expenditure of ₹ 131.32 crores represents mostly the interest paid on bill discounting of IPPs and working capital loan from banks which are specifically meant for the business purpose; and (v) Total exempt income earned by assessee during the year stood at ₹ 249 crores. 13. We observe that ld. Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act without examining the facts referred above which were very crucial to reach at the final disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. There are series of judgments of the co-ordinate benches that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income earned during the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing the deduction of ₹ 4,44,00,000/- being guarantee fees paid to the Government of Gujarat after necessary verification as directed by his predecessor for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 12. The assessee during the assessment proceedings contended that it has been paying guarantee commission to the government of Gujarat year after year on the loan outstanding at the beginning of the year. As such, the government of Gujarat stands as a guarantor for such loan raised by the assessee. , Furthermore, there is no benefit of enduring nature accruing to it on the payment of guarantee commission to the government of Gujarat. 13. However, the AO was of the view that there was the restructuring of the loan, rescheduling of repayment loan schedule, reduction in interest over a long period of time exceeding 5 years. Thus, the AO concluded that, the restructuring of loan, guarantee by the government of Gujarat, has resulted enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the guarantee commission as capital expenditure and disallowed the same. Hence, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fees is not resulting any enduring benefit to the assessee. 16. The Learned AR before us submitted that the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA Nos. 837 899/AHD/2012 dated 22ndJune 2016 has decided the issue in favor of the assessee. 17. On the other hand, the Learned DR contended that the fact whether such guarantee fees was paid with respect to the loan which was utilized for the capital working progress which was not put to usein the year under consideration is to be verified. Accordingly, if that be so, the amount of guarantee commission needs to be capitalized. 18. Both the Learned AR and DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favorable to them. 19. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, there is no ambiguity that the Learned CIT (A) has decided the issue on hand after relying on the order of his predecessor for the Assessment Years 2008-09 which was also subsequently upheld by the ITAT in ITA No. 899/AHD/2012 vide order dated 22nd June 2016. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occasion to consider the allowability of guarantee commission paid to a Director of the company in respect of loans taken from the bank. In the case of Himalaya Machinery Pvt.Ltd. (ITA No.738/Ahd/2009) for AY 2006-07, the Tribunal held, vide order dt.5.6.2009, following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Metalising Equipment Co.Pvt.Ltd., 8 DTR 12, that the payment of commission for guaranteeing repayment of loan was allowable as revenue expense. In the instant case, the loan has been guaranteed by the Government of Gujarat. Hence, quite apart from the other sound reasons for treating the expenditure as revenue, it would be unrealistic to say that the appellant company could derive any undue advantage or collateral benefit by making such payment to the GOG. In view of the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (₹ 8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted. 6.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The jurisdictional Bench of ITAT has held in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT, 92 TTJ 568, that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in appeal in the immediate preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2008-09 before us on the following grounds of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of claim of guarantee fees of ₹ 4.76 crores without appreciating that the disallowance was made as the same are enduring nature in the assessee s business. 21.1 The above ground of appeal raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 899/AHD/2012 was dismissed by the ITAT vide order dated 22nd June 2016 which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. What flows from the conjoint reading of the order of the Learned CIT (A) and the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as discussed above is that there was no enduring benefit accrued to the assessee out of guarantee fees paid by it to the government of Gujarat. As such the finding of the ITAT has to be seen in the context of the ruling of the AO and the Learned CIT (A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. In fact, the Learned CIT(A) for the assessment Year 2008-09 held that there was no benefit accrued to the assessee which is in the enduring natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the ld. CIT-A, the assessee submitted that amount of ₹ 21.47 Lacs represents the credit entries which were offered to tax by crediting the profit and loss account. Accordingly, further addition of ₹ 21.47 Lacs will lead to the double addition to the total income of the assessee. The Learned CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO subject to the verification of the claim made by the assessee as discussed above. 26. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 27. The Learned AR before us reiterated the contention as made before the Learned CIT(A). On the contrary, the Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 28. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Indeed, the onus lies on the assessee to furnish the requisite details in support of its claim. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the direction of the Learned CIT(A) for allowing the deduction for the item of the addition made by the AO after necessary verification. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plant and machinery. Disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of ₹ 1,21,06,721/- is confirmed. 6.3 Following the decision in the preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2008-09, the disallowance of ₹ 1,21,06,721/- made in the year under consideration is also confirmed. 32. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. The Learned AR before us submitted that the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 837 and 899/AHD/2012 vide order dated 22nd June 2016 has set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, the Learned AR before us pleaded that the matter for the year under consideration can also be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 34. On the other hand, the Learned DR raised no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 35. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, there is no ambiguity that the Learned CIT (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. 37. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition of ₹ 50.85 crores disallowed under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D while determining the income under the provisions of MAT. 38. The AO during the assessment proceedings has made the disallowance of ₹ 50.85 crores in determining the income under normal computation of income under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. The AO made the addition of the same disallowance while determining the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. On appeal before the Learned CIT(A), the order of the AO was confirmed by the Learned CIT (A). 39. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 40. The Learned AR before us contended that disallowance made under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D under normal computation of income cannot be added to the income determined under the provisions of MAT. 41. On the other hand, the Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made since the assessee has not claimed such expenditure to be Nil. Such computation must be made by applying clause (f) of Explanation 1 under Section 115JB of the Act. We remand the matter for such computation to be made by the Learned Tribunal. We accept the submission of Mr. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate that the provision of Section 115JB in the matter of computation is a complete code in itself and resort need not and cannot be made to Section 14A of the Act. Given above, we hold that the disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act as per the direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd. (Supra). 46. Now the question arises to determine the disallowance as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act independently. In this regard, we note that there is no mechanism/ manner given under the Clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act to workout/ determine the expenses with respect to the exempted income. Therefore, in the given facts circumstances, we feel that ad-hoc disallowance will ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out following the ratio taken in the decision of Id.CIT(A) in the case of M/s.Dakshin Gujrat Vij Co. Ltd. and other subsidiary companies of the assessee, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ? 3550 lacs being 15% of capital grant received by the assessee which was neither reduced from the cost of capital assets nor offered portion of it as revenue receipts as treatments of grants/ subsidies given by the subsidiary companies in their accounts, but taken to 'reserve and surplus' account and utilized in investment activities. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the interest income of ? 547.36 lacs as business income instead of income from other sources without appreciating that the nature of the income is of purely interest and not from any activities of business or profession. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. 50. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot be any addition of ₹ 3750 lakh being 15% of the grant credited in the year under consideration under the head reserve and surplus. 57. The Learned CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 7.2 I have considered the facts of the case and appellant s submissions. The appellant has received the capital grant for making investments in equity capital of subsidiary companies. Since the appellant has not acquired any fixed assets, on which depreciation has been claimed, hence such grants cannot be reduced from the cost of fixed assets of the appellant company. In the circumstances, the disallowance of ₹ 37,50,000/- made by the A.O. of the 15% of the capital grants is not correct. Accordingly, the same is deleted. 58. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 59. Both the Learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 60. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we note that, the tribunal in the own case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom other sources. 62. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown interest income on the advances/loans to the staff, interest on other loans and advances, interest on Unscheduled Interchange pool account amounting to ₹ 547.36 Lacs which was treated as income from the business activities. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not relate to the business activities of the assessee and, therefore, the same has to be treated as income under the head other sources. 63. On appeal, the Learned CIT (A) held that impugned interest income of ₹ 547.36 Lacs represents income from the business by observing as under: 8.2 I have considered the facts of the case and appellant s submissions. So far as interest income from UP Pool account is concerned, from the details submitted by the appellant, it is evident that this income is being derived from business activity of the appellant and not on account of investment of surplus fund available with it. Hence, this income is in the nature of income from business and A.O. is directed to tax it accordingly. Similarly, the interest earned from loans to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of appeal: 1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has confirmed the effect given by the Assessing Officer in respect of the Disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that amount of interest expenditure for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 14A was directed to be considered at ₹ 21,92,00,000/- as against the amount of ₹ 30,82,00,000/- considered by the Assessing Officer while passing order giving to the CIT(A) s order. 2.0 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on tax liability computed under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 70. The first issue raised by the assessee is that Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. 71. At the outset we note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
