TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 8D(2)(ii). We, thus, in the backdrop of the admitted fact that the assessee had significant interest-free funds to make the investments in the exempt income yielding securities, thus, are of the considered view that no part of the interest expenditure could have been disallowed under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations we vacate the disallowance of the interest expenditure under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) that was offered by the assessee in its return of income. Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Fresh claim raised by an assessee before the appellate authorities - Revised claim of Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Deduction would be the actual bad debts written off over and above the opening balance of the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- In order to drive home our view that a fresh claim can be raised by an assessee before the appellate authorities, as long as the same arises from the facts borne on record, we draw support from the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders (P) Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No. 6609/Mum/2019, wherein the impugned order has been assailed by the assessee on the following grounds before us: 1 . The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not deleting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of ₹ 50.64 lakhs which was offered by the appellant in the return of income, on the ground that such claim would amount to an additional claim which could only have been made by way of filing a revised return of income and not otherwise. 2 . The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that there is no restriction on the powers of an appellate authority to admit an additional claim raised otherwise than by way of filing a revised return. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have deleted the entire disallowance of ₹ 50.64 lakhs under section 14A of the Act, having held that the investments in exempt income yielding securities were made out of own funds. 4. The learned Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration was in receipt of tax free dividend income of ₹ 4,76,06,497/-. On a perusal of the records, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had offered a suo motto disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of ₹ 50,64,432/-. It was noticed by him that the assessee while computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A had excluded the investment of ₹ 20 crores made in its subsidiary company viz. M/s Saraswat Infotech Ltd. Being of the view that the assessee had wrongly excluded the aforesaid investment made in its subsidiary company while computing the disallowance u/s 14A, the A.O reworked out the disallowance at an amount of ₹ 1,86,62,836/-, as under: Calculation of disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D (31.03.2013) 1.Actual Direct Expenditure 0 2. Interest expenditure not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. (Working note 1 and 2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. average value of investment (refer working note 4) 274411633 0.5% of above 1372058 Working note 4 Average value of investments (excl. SIL) Invt. In shares as on 31.03.2012 124411650 Investment in shares of SIL 199999983 Invt. In Mutual funds dividend option as on 31.03.2012 0 324411633 Invt. In shares as on 31.03.2013 24411650 Investment in shares of SIL 199999983 Invt. In mutual fund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, A.Y 2009-10 A.Y 2010-11, vide a common order dated 31st October, 2018 had after considering the judgments of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Powers Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) had restored the matter to the A.O, with a direction, that in case the assessee s own interest-free funds were more than the investments in the securities capable of yielding exempt income, then, the presumption, unless rebutted by the revenue would be that the assessee had utilized its own interest-free funds for making investments in the said securities. The CIT(A) after necessary deliberations admitted the additional ground of appeal qua the aforesaid issue in question. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Limited (supra), and also, the view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the preceding years, principally concurred with the assessee that where significant interest-free funds were available with an assessee for making investment in securities yielding exempt income, then, it has to be presumed that such investment was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n stated, that while raising the claim in respect of bad debts written off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, which therein contemplates, that the deduction would be restricted to the amount of bad debts which is in excess of the balance in the provision made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the assessee had by mistake wrongly restricted the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) to the extent the bad debts were in excess of the closing balance of the provision made u/s 36(1)(viia). It was stated by the assessee that the manner in which the aforesaid claim was raised was accepted by the A.O. Referring to the CBDT Circular No. 17/2008, dated 26th November, 2008, it was submitted by the assessee that the same clearly provided that for the purpose of making the claim u/s 36(1)(vii) it was the opening balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts which was to be considered. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal had sought for an incremental/additional claim of deduction of ₹ 27.66 crores. As is discernible from the records, though the CIT(A) admitted the additional ground of appeal and principally agreed with the content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii), it was submitted by the ld. A.R that though the CIT(A) had principally agreed and accepted the claim of the assessee, however, he had declined to allow the consequential relief for the standalone reason that the said claim was not raised in the return of income. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) while declining to allow the consequential relief in conformity with the CBDT Circular No. 17/2008, dated 26.11.2008, had relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra). Rebutting the aforesaid observation of the CIT(A), it was once again submitted by the ld. A.R that no embargo was placed upon the appellate authorities qua entertaining and therein adjudicating an issue involving a question of law as long as the facts were borne from the record. Once again reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders (P) Ltd.(supra). Further, the ld. A.R in support of the additional ground of appeal that was raised before us, therein submitted, that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Sesa G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y raising an additional ground of appeal sought that the entire disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) be vacated. The CIT(A) after necessary deliberations admitted the additional ground of appeal . As observed by us herein above, the CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Limited (supra), and also, the view taken by the Tribunal in the assesee s own case for the preceding years, principally concurred with the assessee that as significant interest-free funds were available with it for making investments in securities yielding exempt income thus, it was to be presumed that such investments were made out of the interest free funds and no disallowance of interest expenditure could be made u/s 14A of the Act. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee undisputedly was having interest free funds more than the investments made by it in the exempt income yielding securities. However, the CIT(A) was of the view that as the assessee had in its original return of income suo motto disallowed u/s 14A an amount of ₹ 50.64 lacs, therefore, the reduction beyond the said amount could have been made only b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court while concluding as hereinabove had observed as under: 10. A long line of authorities establish clearly that an assessee is entitled to raise additional grounds not merely in terms of legal submissions, but also additional claims to wit claims not made in the return filed by it. It is necessary for us to refer to some of these decisions only to deal with two submissions on behalf of the department. The first is with respect to an observation of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax. 11(A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase tax under the provisions of the Bengal Raw Jute Taxation Act, 1941, as it entertained a belief that it was not liable to pay purchase tax under that Act. Subsequently, the appellant was assessed to purchase tax and the order of assessment was received by it on 23rd November, 1973. The appellant challenged the same an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Authority while hearing appeal against the order of a subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision the Appellate Authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There appears to be no good reason and none was placed before us to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer. [emphasis supplied] (B) It is clear, therefore, that an assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit such additional claims to be raised. It cannot, however, be said that they have no jurisdiction to consider the same. They have the jurisdiction to entertain the new claim. That they may choose no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces or law, but with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed. The first part viz. if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made... clearly relate to cases where the ground was available when the return was filed and the assessment order was made but could not have been raised at that stage. The words are could not have been raised and not were not in existence . Grounds which were not in existence when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made fall within the second category viz. where the ground became available on account of change of circumstances or law. 14. The facts in Jute Corporation of India Ltd., various judgments referred to therein as well as in subsequent cases, which we will refer to, establishes this beyond doubt. In many of the cases, the grounds were, in fact, available when the return was filed and/or the assessment order was made. In Jute Corporation of India Ltd., the ground was available when the return was filed. The assessee did not claim any deduction of its liability to pay purchase tax as it entertained a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds before the Tribunal in that connection. The Tribunal rejected the same. The second question which was raised in the reference before the Division Bench was as under :- (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not allowing the assessee leave to raise in its own appeals additional grounds and in the departmental appeals cross objections regarding the deductibility of the sums transferred to contingency reserve and tariff and dividend control reserve? (B) The Division Bench which heard the reference, finding that there was a conflict of decisions, placed the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to resolve the controversy. The Full Bench answered the reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Full Bench held :- Thus, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the assessee. He may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or remand the case to the Assessing Officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this amount was neither challenged by the assessee nor considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The inclusion of the amount was not objected to even in the grounds of appeal as originally filed before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the assessee by a letter, raised additional grounds to the effect that the said sum could not be included in the total income. The assessee contended that on a erroneous admission, no income can be included in the total income. It was further contended that the ITO and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred and failed in their duty in adjudicating the matter correctly and by mechanically including the amount in the total income. It is pertinent to note that the assessee contended that it was entitled to the deduction in view of two orders of the Special Benches of the Tribunal and the assessee further stated that it had raised these additional grounds on learning about the legal position subsequently. The Tribunal declined to entertain these additional grounds. The Supreme Court did not answer the question on merits, but framed the following question and held as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellate authorities in permitting the respondent to raise this claim. That the respondent is entitled to the deduction in law is admitted and, in any event, clearly established. In the circumstances, the respondent ought not be prejudiced. 19. The orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal clearly indicate that both the appellate authorities had exercised their jurisdiction to consider the additional claim as they were entitled to in view of the various judgments on the issue, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited. This is clear from the fact that these judgments have been expressly referred to in detail by the CIT(A) and by the Tribunal. 20. We wish to clarify that both the appellate authorities have themselves considered the additional claim and allowed it. They have not remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the same. Both the orders expressly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of ₹ 40,00,000/- under section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, now only to compute the respondent's tax liability which he must do in accordance with the orders allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs. [emphasis supplied] 23. It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254. 24. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with a similar submission in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Limited, (2008) 306 ITR 42. The Division Bench, in paragraph 17 of the judgment held that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal making it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pally agreed qua its claim that the amount of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) would be the actual bad debts written off over and above the opening balance of the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act, however, he had erroneously declined to allow the consequential relief thereof. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the standalone reason that had weighed in the mind of the CIT(A) for declining the incremental/additional claim of deduction raised by the assessee under Sec. 36(1)(vii), was that the said claim was neither raised by the assessee in its original return of income nor by way of filing of a revised return. Briefly stated, as observed by us at length hereinabove, the assessee which is a scheduled bank had by wrongly construing the scope of Sec. 36(1)(vii) limited its claim for deduction of the bad debts written off to the extent the same exceeded the closing balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Observing, that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2008, dated 26.11.2008 had spelt out that the opening balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts was to be considered for the purpose of making the claim u/s 36(1)(vii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess and in order to dispel all doubts, we may herein observe that the said claim of the assessee is duly supported by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2008, dated 26.11.2008; and the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. UTI Bank Ltd., 2013, 29 taxman.com 9 (Guj). Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we herein direct the A.O to allow the assessee s revised claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 4 5 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 12. We shall now advert to the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee before us, wherein it has sought a direction to the A.O to allow deduction in respect of education cess paid on income tax amounting to ₹ 2,90,37,888/- for the year under consideration. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal has sought our indulgence for adjudicating an issue involving purely a question of law based on the facts available on record, we, thus, admit the same. 13. Insofar the claim of the Ld. A.R that unlike rates and taxes the amount paid by an assessee towards Education Cess or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession , - (a) in the case of any assessee (ia)........................... (ib)................................ (ic) ............................ (ii) any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains. [Explanation 1.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes and shall be deemed always to have included any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90 or, as the case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91.] [Explanation 2.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any 9 TXA17 18-13 dt.28.02.2020 sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90A;] 17. Therefore, the question which arises for determination is whether the expression any rate or tax levied as it appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the provision for deduction, exemption or relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee and it should be so construed as to effectuate the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. Further, the interpretation cannot go to the extent of reading something that is not stated in the provision [See AGS Tiber Vs CIT 233 ITR 207]. 22. Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that the legislature, in Section 40(a)(ii) has provided that any rate or tax levied on profits and gains of business or profession shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession . There is no reference to any cess . Obviously therefore, there is no scope to accept Ms. Linhares's contention that cess being in the nature of a Tax is equally not deductable in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession . Acceptance of such a contention will amount to reading something in the text of the provision which is not to be found in the text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. 23. If the legislature intended to prohibit the deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of, any such profits or gains . When the matter came up before the Select Committee, it was decided to omit the word cess' from the clause. The effect of the omission of the word cess' is that only taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards. 3. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought to the notice of all the Income Tax Officers so that further litigation on this account may be avoided.[Board's F. No.91/58/66-ITJ(19), dated 18-5-1967.] 27. The CBDT Circular, is binding upon the authorities under the IT Act like Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority. The CBDT Circular is quite consistent with the principles of interpretation of taxing statute. This, according to us, is an additional reason as to why the expression cess ought not to be read or included in the expression any rate or tax levied as appearing in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. 28. In the Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession'. In the corresponding Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.52/2018 decided on 31st July, 2018 (Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs CIT Range-2, Kota ), by reference to the aforesaid CBDT Circular dated 18th May, 1967 has held 16 TXA17 18-13 dt. 28.02.2020 that the ITAT erred in holding that the education cess is a disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee. 31. Mr. Ramani, in fact pointed out three decisions of ITAT, in which, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.(supra) was followed and it was held that the amounts paid by the Assessee towards the 'education cess' were liable for deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head of profits and gains of business or profession . They are as follows :- (i) DCIT Vs Peerless General Finance and Investment and Co. Ltd. (ITA No.1469 and 1470/Kol/2019 decided on 5th December, 2019 by the ITAT, Calcutta; (ii) DCIT Vs G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court in Unicorn Industries (supra ). 36. The aforesaid means that the Supreme Court refused to regard the levy of education cess, higher education cess and NCCD as duty of excise when it came to construing exemption Notification. Based upon this, Mr. Ramani contends that similarly amounts paid by the Appellant Assessee towards the cess can never be regarded as the amounts paid towards the tax so as to attract provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. All that we may observe is that the issue involved in Unicorn Industries (supra ) was not at all the issue involved in the present matters and therefore, the decision in Unicorn Industries ( supra ) can be of no assistance to the Respondent Revenue in the present matters. 37. Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue however submitted that the Appellant Assessee, in its original return, had never claimed deduction towards the amounts paid by it as cess . She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the powers of the ITAT under section 254 of the said Act. This means that in Goetze (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was not dealing with the extent of the powers of the appellate authorities but the observations were in relation to the powers of the assessing authority. This is the distinction drawn by the division Bench in Pruthvi Brokers (supra) as well and this is the distinction which the ITAT failed to note in the impugned order. 41. Besides, we note that in the present case, though the claim for deduction was not raised in the original return or by filing revised return, the Appellant Assessee had indeed addressed a letter claiming such deduction before the assessment could be completed. However, even if we proceed on the basis that there was no obligation on the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for deduction in such letter, the Commissioner ( Appeals ) or the ITAT, before whom such deduction was specifically claimed was duty bound to consider such claim. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with Ms. Linhare's contention based upon the decision in Goetze (supra ). 42. For all the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14A of the Act, having held that the investments in exempt income yielding securities were made out of own funds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not allowing appellants claim of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 24.46 crores on the ground that such claim would amount to an additional claim which could only have been made by way of f iling a revised return of income and not otherwise. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have allowed the claim of ₹ 24.46 crores under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act, having held that the amount of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) would be the excess of actual debts written off over the opening balance of provision created under section 36(1)(viia) as laid down in circular no. 17/2008 of CBDT. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in mentioning the amount of ₹ 10 Iakhs instead of ₹ 10 crores whi le adjudicat ing the grounds per taining to deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add alter or Not Applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance was made by the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) sustained the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of ₹ 16,10,205/- i.e the amount that was suo motto offered by the assessee in its return of income. As regards the assessee s additional claim for deduction under Sec. 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(1)(viia), the CIT(A) following the view taken by him while disposing off the assessee s appeal for A.Y 2013-14, therein dismissed the same. Further, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee s claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of ₹ 10 crore (wrongly mentioned by him in his order as ₹ 10 lac). Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee s appeal. 19. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. Both the ld. Authorised Representatives were in agreement that the issues involved in the present appeal were the same as were there before us in the appeal of the assessee for the immediately preceding year i.e A.Y 2013-14. 20. As the issue involved in the grounds of appeal 1 to 3 pertaining to assesses claim for vacating of the disallowance u/s 14A remains the same as was there before us in the assessee s app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
