TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(ii) and Section 115JB, Circular of the CBDT No. 91/58/66-ITJ(19), the orders of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT and judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, we hereby direct the revenue to consider the claim of deduction of the 'Education Cess' as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. - ITA No. 4583/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2021 - Amit Shukla, Member (J) And Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Member (A) For the Appellant : V.P. Gupta, Adv. For the Respondents : Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR ORDER Dr. B. R. R. Kumar , Member ( A ) The present appeals have been filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-39, New Delhi dated 25.04.2017. 2. In ITA No. 4583/Del/2017, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of ₹ 26,70,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards administrative expenses under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules without appreciating that making a disallowance as per Rule 8D results in arbitrary, unreasonable an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 281/2019 CM APPL. 14304/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 ...... Appellant Through : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus H.T. MEDIA LTD. Respondent Through : Mr. V.P. Gupta and Mr. Arunav Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN ORDER 29.03.2019 The question urged by the Revenue in its appeal is with respect to the correctness of the remand made by the ITAT in its impugned order; the remand was on two aspects i.e. the calculation of average investments (confined to the income generating part thereof) and the exclusion of tax exempt income derived from strategic investments. The observation of the ITAT on the latter aspect, i.e. exclusion of tax exempt income derived from a strategic investments, is not a correct view in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 402 ITR 640. Accordingly, the observations of the ITAT on this aspect are set aside. However, its observations with respect to the calculation of disallowance under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividend income was received during the year. 117.75 102.75 110.25 Disal lowance at 0.5% - ₹ 55,12,500 8. With regard to the ground No. 3 of the assessee regarding the satisfaction, we find that the AO has duly considered this issue as can be deciphered at para 3.2 of the assessment order. 9. The assessee has filed application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional grounds of appeal. The additional grounds read as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the ld. AO, while computing the income of the Appellant under the head 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession', ought to have allowed the deduction in respect of 'Education Cess' and 'Secondary and Higher Education Cess' of ₹ 1,93,84,058/- as determined by him vide order of assessment. 10. The ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383. Admission of the additional ground h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal [vide, e.g., C.I.T. v. Anand Prasad (Delhi), C.I.T. v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. and C.I.T. v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. 8. The reframed question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
