TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier years. There is a positive profit during the year. The Assessing Officer s calculation of treating the each unit independently and setting off the profits against the losses of the unit which have already been set off against by the profits of the assessee in the earlier years cannot be held to be legally valid. AO is directed to verify the same for accuracy of the figures from the returns filed for the earlier assessment years. The appeal the revenue on this issue is dismissed. Whether the brought forward losses need to be set off against the profits earned during the year before claiming the deduction u/s 80IA or not? - On a concurrent reading of what constitutes on initial assessment year and the provision for brought forward of losses, the eventual conclusion derives from such reading is that in case the assessee has existing brought forward losses which were either could not be set off against the profits and if the assessee considers any year as the initial assessment year for the benefit of Section 80IA in such cases, the eligible profits would be determined only after setting off of the losses/ unabsorbed depreciation carried forward in the year the deduction is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is a clarificatory notification. The clarifications issued by the Board pertain to the statute in force from the date of insertion. Circulars cannot be treated as amendments which generally have a prospective effect unless specified as retrospective. In our view the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on bank guarantee commission as there is a conspicuous absence of principle - agent relationship envisaged under Section 194H. There is no principle- agent relationship between a bank and its customers. Further, the amount charged by a bank, not in the nature of a commission as per Act. Disallowance on account of CSR - AO disallowed the expenditure claimed stating it was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee - CIT (A) supported the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure is an application of income. An application of income is not an allowable deduction for computing taxable income of any company - HELD THAT:- The expenditure incurred by the assessee is in no way connected with the business of the assessee or earning of the income. As per section 37 therefore the expenditure has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer ( AO ) by applying the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ( the Rules ), alleging that certain expenditure would have to be incurred by the Appellant to earn the exempt income. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant that only expenditure of ₹ 2,30,000 can be said to be incurred for earning the dividend income and in the absence of any nexus existing between the dividend earned and other expenditure claimed by the Appellant, disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not warranted. 1.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding, the disallowance made by the AO applying sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of the Rules without recording any cogent reason regarding his dissatisfaction, on disallowance of ₹ 2,30,000 /- suo-moto computed by the appellant and offered for taxation, as required by section 14A of the Act read with sub- rule (1) of Rule 8 D of the Rules. 1.3 That, without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the computation of the AO wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 1.4 That, without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not considering the allocation of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act towards port, power and regasification undertakings. 4. In ITA No. 5232/Del/2015, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily sustaining the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) by applying the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ( the Rules ), alleging that certain expenditure would have to be incurred by the Appellant to earn the exempt income. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant that only expenditure of ₹ 3,69,800 can be said to be incurred for earning the dividend income and in the absence of any nexus existing between the dividend earned and other expenditure claimed by the Appellant, disallowance under section 14 A of the Act was not warranted. 1.2 That on the facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the Id C1T(A) has erred in disallowing the disallowance of ₹ 10,29,12,855/- made by Assessing Officer by ignoring the provisions of section 80 IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id C1T(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 7,91,95,087/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 6. In ITA No. 4903/Del/2015, following grounds have been raised by the revenue: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the disallowance of ₹ 33,31,00, 400/- made by Assessing Officer by ignoring the provision of sub section 5 of section 801A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1287.32 lakhs under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by ignoring the mandatory provisions of Rule 8D w.r.s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 7. In ITA No. 4904/Del/2015, following grounds have been raised by the revenue: 1. On the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nally brought forwarded and set off u/ s 80 IA(5) for determining claim of deduction. 11. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the grounds that the action of the Assessing Officer to bring losses again notionally cannot be accepted. 12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The profits and the brought forward and carried forward losses from A.Y. 2005-06 till the current assessment year as per the AO are given below: Assessment Years Port Unit 2006 07 B/ F Losses (310, 09, 69, 047) Taxable profits for A. Y 06 07 6, 86, 05, 536 Carry forward balance losses to AY 07 - 08 (303, 23, 63, 511) Deduction u/ s 80IA Nil 2007 08 B/ F Losses (303, 23, 63, 511) Taxable profits for A. Y 07 08 54, 39, 28, 860 Carry forward balance losses to AY 08 - 09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year for which the determination is to be made. 17. Owing to the non- specificity of the initial assessment year which lead to conflicting interpretations, CBDT has clarified as to what constitutes initial assessment year with reference to Section 80IA(5) vide Circular No. 1 of 2016 dated 15.02.2016. Since, the Circular is clarificatory in nature, it is treated as applicable from the year, the statute came into force. Circular No. 1 /2016 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes North Block, New Delhi, the 15th February, 2016 Subject: Clarification of the term initial assessment year in section 80IA (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( Act ), as substituted by the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000, provides for deduction of an amount equal to 100 % of the profits and gains derived by an undertaking or enterprise from an eligible business (as referred to in sub-section (4) of that section) in accordance with the prescribed provisions. Sub-section (2j of section 80IA further provides that the aforesaid deduction can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first year opted for by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. However, the total number of years for claiming deduction should not transgress the prescribed slab of fifteen or twenty years, as the case may be and the period of claim should be availed in continuity. The Assessing Officers are, therefore, directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA in accordance with this clarification and after being satisfied that all the prescribed conditions applicable in a particular case are duly satisfied. Pending litigation on allowability of deduction u/s 80 IA shall also not be pursued to the extent it relates to interpreting initial assessment year as mentioned in sub- section (5) of that section for which the Standing Counsels/D.R.s be suitably instructed. The above be brought to the notice of all Assessing Officers concerned. Sd/- (Deepshikha Sharma) Director to the Government of India (F.No. 200/31/2015-ITA-I) 18. Straight to the issue- Taking into consideration, the above Circular of the CBDT, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction from the assessment year 2009-10 as the initial assessment year u/ s 80IA(5) even though thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is a legal fiction and though losses were set off against other sources income, they are to be assumed as not set off in absence of existence of another source and for computing the profit and gains for the purposes of determination of the quantum of deduction one has to once again notionally bring back already set off losses, etc. and set off the same against the profits and gains in a year in the deduction is claimed. This view is supported in the case of ITO Vs. Sicgil India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 119 ITD 184 (CHENNAI), which gave a finding that in view of the specific provisions of Section 80-IA(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of the quantum of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years.(Ack-inputs from Open Article Robin Rawal Addl.CIT) 24. Subsequent to clarification by the Circular of the CBDT, since the initial year of deduction is allowed to be different from the initial year of commencement, the profits have to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r distribution of power or undertakes substantial renovation and modernisation of the existing transmission or distribution lines : Provided that where the assessee develops or operates and maintains or develops, operates and maintains any infrastructure facility referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of the Explanation to clause (i) of sub-section (4), the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words fifteen years , the words twenty years had been substituted. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the deduction in computing the total income of an undertaking providing telecommunication services, specified in clause (ii) of sub- section (4), shall be hundred per cent of the profits and gains of the eligible business for the first five assessment years commencing at any time during the periods as specified in sub-section (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent of such profits and gains for further five assessment years. (3) This section applies to an undertaking referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iv) of sub-section (4) which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :- (i) it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which fulfils all the following conditions, namely : (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies or by an authority or a board or a corporation or any other body established or constituted under any Central or State Act; (b) it has entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility; (c) it has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st day of April, 1995: Provided that where an infrastructure facility is transferred on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 by an enterprise which developed such infrastructure facility (hereafter referred to in this section as the transferor enterprise) to another enterprise (hereafter in this section referred to as the transferee enterprise) for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Central Government, State Government, local authority or statutory body, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod in the ten consecutive assessment years as if the operation and maintenance were not so transferred to the transferee undertaking : Provided further that in the case of any undertaking which develops, develops and operates or maintains and operates an industrial park, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the figures, letters and words 31st day of March, 2006 , the figures, letters and words 31st day of March, 2011 had been substituted; (iv) an undertaking which,- (a) is set up in any part of India for the generation or generation and distribution of power if it begins to generate power at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1993 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2017; (b) starts transmission or distribution by laying a network of new transmission or distribution lines at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1999 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2017: Provided that the deduction under this section to an undertaking under sub-clause (b) shall be allowed only in relation to the profits derived from laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution; ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J (Ahd) (SB) 705 it was held that in view of Section 80IA(5), the eligible unit had to be treated as the only source of income and the profits had to be computed after deduction of the notionally brought forward losses and depreciation of the eligible business even though they were in fact set-off against other income in the earlier years 29. The Hon ble Court of Madras in the case of VS Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 340 ITR 477 held that the eligible business was the only source of income, during the previous year relevant to initial assessment year and every subsequent assessment years, when the assessee exercises the option, the only losses of the years beginning from initial assessment year alone are to be brought forward and no losses of earlier years which were already set off against the income of the assessee. Looking forward to a period of ten years from the initial assessment is contemplated. It does not allow the Revenue to look backward and find out if there is any loss of earlier years and bring forward notionally even though the same were set off against other income of the assessee and the set off against the current income of the eligible business. Once the set off is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has existing brought forward losses which were either could not be set off against the profits and if the assessee considers any year as the initial assessment year for the benefit of Section 80IA in such cases, the eligible profits would be determined only after setting off of the losses/ unabsorbed depreciation carried forward in the year the deduction is claimed. 34. This ratio applies to ground nos. 1 2 of the departmental appeal for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010- 11 and ground no. 1 for the assessment year 2011-12. Deduction u/ s 14A: The appeal of the revenue on Rule 8D(2)(ii) The appeal of the assessee on Rule 8D(2)(iii) 35. During the year, the assessee has earned dividend income of ₹ 29,86,43,660/-(amount varies from year to year) from investment in mutual funds. The dividend income earned was claimed as exempt from tax u/ s 10(34) of the Act. The assessee argued that they have not incurred any expenditure during the assessment year in connection with earning of said dividend income. The assessee has offered an amount of ₹ 2,30,000 /- u/ s 14A of the Act for taxation during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17) 85 taxmann.com 113 (Del.) CIT Om Prakash Khaitan (2015) 376 ITR 390 (Del.) ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. (2007) 101 TTJ 369 (Del.) Maruti Udgyog Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del.) CIT Vs Hero Cycles (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P H) DCIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. in ITA No. 2020 /Del/2014 39. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee has not earned any dividend from certain investments which may not be taken into consideration while computing the disallowance. 40. On the other hand, the ld. DR totally supported the order of the Assessing Officer on all aspects. 41. These facts on record and the arguments of both the parties culminate in: Whether the Assessing Officer have recorded any cogent reason for his dissatisfaction or not. Whether the ld. CIT (A) was correct in deleting the amount of ₹ 7,91,95,087/- under Rule 8 D(2)(ii) or not. Whether the ld. CIT (A) was correct in confirming the amount of ₹ 2,12,89,490 /- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) or not. Q-1) Whether the Assessing Officer have recorded any cogent reason for his dissatisfaction or not. 42. With regard to the satisfaction of the AO, we have gone through the order of the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom it. All these activities require use of its manpower and official machinery. In view of this, it is not acceptable that no expenditure was incurred in this regard. Since, use of official machinery cannot be denied; part of expenses should have been apportioned to the income which does not form part of total income. Thus, I am not satisfied with the correctness of assessee's claim that no expenditure was incurred for making investment or for earning exempt income. 43. On going through the Assessment Order, we find that the Assessing Officer has duly examined the issue in detail. Having not satisfied the fact that the assessee has not disallowed any amount for earning tax free income of ₹ 10.4 Cr., the AO has enquired into and adequate opportunity was accorded to the assessee to reply as to how the contention of the assessee is acceptable. The assessee replied on 13.09.2011, on 22.09.2011 and on 29.11.2011 and the deliberations went on during hearing show the application of mind of the AO with regard to the dissatisfaction as per the provisions of Section 14A. The Assessing Officer has given reasoning at para 33 of the Assessment Order which has been reproduced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO - as indeed the three important steps indicated by him in the order, shows that all these elements were present in his mind, that he did not expressly record his dissatisfaction in these circumstances, would not per se justify this Court in concluding that he was not satisfied or did not record cogent reasons for his dissatisfaction to reject the AO's conclusion. To insist that the AO should pay such lip service regardless of the substantial compliance with the provisions would in fact destroy the mandate of Section 14A. 48. In the instant case, the AO cannot be faulted for not being satisfied with the claim of the assessee. The AO is justified in presuming that the assessee has incurred expenditure towards administrative activities necessary to earn the exempt income. Once, the inference of the AO is found to be correct, the provisions of Rule 8D sets in. Owing to the decisions of the Hon ble Courts and the facts of the instant case, we hold that the Assessing Officer has rightly not satisfied with the contentions of the assessee and the disallowance. Q.2) Whether the ld. CIT (A) was correct in deleting the amount of ₹ 7, 91, 95,087/- under Rule 8D(2)(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The ld. AR argued that since the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction, no disallowance ought to have been made and there was no nexus of the expenditure with the corresponding income has been established by the revenue. 54. In the preceding paras the issue of satisfaction has already been adjudicated. Hence, the provisions Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) sets in motion. We have already adjudicated on the facts of applicability of Rule 8 D(2)(ii) wherein it was held that the provisions have not been attracted with regard to the assessee on the specific facts of the case. 55. With regard to Rule 8D(2)(iii), the provisions read as under: (2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely:- (i)............. (ii)............ (iii) an amount equal to one- half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year. 56. In this aspect, we are guided by the judgments of the Hon ble Jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee that no expenditure has been incurred. (k) It is only when this condition precedent is satisfied that the AO is required to determine the amount of expenditure in relation to income not includable in total income in the manner indicated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D. (l) Determination of the amount of expenditure in relation to exempt income under Rule 80 would come into play when the AO rejects the claim of the assessee in this regard. (m) The method for determining the expenditure in relation to exempt income has three components. The first component being the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of the total income. The second component being computed on the basis of the formula given therein in a case where the assessee incurs expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. The formula essentially apportions the amount of expenditure by way of interest [other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the previous year in the ratio of the average value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, to the av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, 515,796, 173 Average of above 4, 257,898, 087 1/ 2 % of above 21, 289, 490 59. Under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the action of the revenue authorities disallowing an amount of ₹ 2, 12, 89, 490/- is hereby sustained. 60. During the arguments, the ld. AR has taken a plea that the average investments included in Adani Petornet (Dahej) Port Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 2660.50 lacs and ₹ 0.13 lacs in India LNG Transport Ltd., Malta which have not yielded any exempt income during the assessment year. The details have been given at page no. 247 of the paper book which is Schedule 6 of the balance sheet under the head investments which have been duly perused. 61. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. HT Media in ITA 281/2019 CM APPL. 14304/2019 vide order dated 29.03.2019 held that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of DEMAT accounts; (iv) charges for warehousing services for commodities; (v) underwriting service charges; (vi) clearing charges (MICR charges); (vii) credit card or debit card commission for transaction between the merchant establishment and acquirer bank. This notification shall come into force from the 1st day of January 2013. 67. The notification clarifies that no tax will be deducted at source w.e. f. 01. 01.2013. This cannot imply that deduction of tax will be done prior to 01.01.2013. This is a clarificatory notification. The clarifications issued by the Board pertain to the statute in force from the date of insertion. Circulars cannot be treated as amendments which generally have a prospective effect unless specified as retrospective. 68. In our view the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on bank guarantee commission as there is a conspicuous absence of principle - agent relationship envisaged under Section 194H. There is no principle- agent relationship between a bank and its customers. Further, the amount charged by a bank, not in the nature of a commission as per Act. 69. The assessee has submitted before the ld. CIT (A) that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure as an allowable business expenditure. 75. Before us the ld. AR argued that the revenue has not disputed the genuineness of the claim of CSR expenditure and only the dispute is with regard to its allowability and the allegation that it is application of income. It was argued that the Explanation 2 to Section 37 was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015, hence not applicable to the instant assessment year. 76. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 77. As per section 37 : 37. General-(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assesses), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be, allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . Explanation 1. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred....... no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. Explanation 2 For removal of doubts, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preceding financial years, in pursuance of its Corporate Social Responsibility Policy: Provided that the company shall give preference to the local area and areas around it where it operates, for spending the amount earmarked for Corporate Social Responsibility activities: Provided further that if the company fails to spend such amount, the Board shall, in its report made under clause (o) of sub- section (3) of section 134, specify the reasons for not spending the amount. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section average net profit shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 198. 79. The Companies Act mandates expenditure of 2% of average net profit of the financial year to be spent on CSR activities. The expenditure by corporate on CSR activities are not allowed as deduction from the profit of the company. The expenditure on CSR is considered as appropriation of profit. 80. We have gone through the extract from Budget Memorandum, * CSR expenditure, being an application of income is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying on business- if such expenses are allowed as tax deduction, this would result in subsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). 85. 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 has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: 5. Under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. We do not see any reason to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee. We remand the proceedings to the Tribunal for consideration of the new grounds raised by the assessee on the merits. 86. Respectfully, following the above judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, the additional grounds taken up by the assessee are hereby admitted. 87. With regard to the issue of Education Cess taken up by the ld. AR, we find that this issue has been adjudicated in the following cases: Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs JCIT in ITA No.52/2018 dated 31.07.2018 (Raj. HC) ITC Vs ACIT in ITA No. 685 / Kol/2014 dated 27.11.2018 Peerless General Finance Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No.937 938/Kol/2018 dated 24.03.2019 DCIT Vs M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 801 to 803 / Indore/2018. Atlas Copco India Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
