TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdictional High Court laid down before us by the Ld. authorized representative. Therefore, respectfully following the judicial precedent of the jurisdictional High Court we direct the Ld. assessing officer to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of the income tax act applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Addition on protective basis - HELD THAT:- As the disallowances been deleted in assessment year 2008 09 the addition is required to be confirmed in this year. Disallowance of the assessee s claim of deduction supplier period expenses even when the assessee was following the market system of accounting - CIT(A) has deleted the above addition following the decision of the Hon ble high court in assessee s own case - HELD THAT:- DR could not point out any infirmity in the order of the Ld. 1st appellate authority in following that decision of the Hon ble high court in assessee s own case. The coordinate bench as well as the Ld. first appellate authority has also dealt with issue of disallowance of the prior paid expenses and held in favour of the assessee. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), in deleting the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od expenses are not admissible as deduction. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 19236000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of the assessee s claim of deduction for prior period expenses, without discussing the issue on merits and merely on the basis of the issue having been decided in assessee s favour by the Hon ble ITAT in earlier Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2007-08, even though every Assessment Year is an independent year and involves independent facts. 4. Factual matrix of the case is that assessee company engaged in technical consultancy and export business filed its return of income on 25/09/2009 at ₹ 1965150476/ subsequently revised on 29, March 2011 at ₹ 1 915900220/-. The assessment under section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 03/03/2013 determining total income of ₹ 1956428064/ . Three disallowances were made with respect to prior period expenses, interest on mobilization advances and disallowances under section 14 A, read with rule 8D of the income tax act. Assessee contested them before the Ld. CIT (A), who deleted the disallowance of ₹ 1 92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the rival contentions and also perused the order of the coordinate bench dated 20 January 2016 in assessee s own case for assessment year 2008 09 in ITA No. 2149/DEL/2013 wherein in while deciding ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee against confirmation of the addition of ₹ 2 0 1.66 Lacs in the nature of contingent claim, in Para No. 10 the coordinate bench has held that the above amount has not been crystallized and therefore the same cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. It was further held that assessee being a government undertaking is been following a system of accounting as per which all the items of income and expenditure are treated as accrue only after the approval is granted by competent authority. Further, the coordinate bench deleted the above addition. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee s own case for assessment year 2008 2009 we also direct the Ld. AO to delete the above addition. In the result, we reverse the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) and allow ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee. 10. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is against confirmation of the disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. authorized representative. Therefore, respectfully following the judicial precedent of the jurisdictional High Court we direct the Ld. assessing officer to delete the disallowance of ₹ 112 5844/ under section 14A of the income tax act applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Reversing the finding of the Ld. first appellate authority, we allow ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee. 14. Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to the addition of ₹ 48.87 crores on protective basis consequential to the addition of ₹ 71.26 crores made by the revenue authorities in the assessment year 2008 09. The Ld. AO has submitted that the above issue is covered against the assessee vide ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee in assessment year 2008 09 decided by the coordinate bench in assessee s own case in ITA No. 2149/del/2013 wherein wide Para No. 12 the above addition being difference between ₹ 166.62 crores and ₹ 71.26 crores is upheld in assessment year 2008 - 2009. As they disallowances been deleted in assessment year 2008 09 the addition is required to be confirmed in this year. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
