9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DCIT Circle4(1)(1) Ahmedabad under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for A.Y. 2015-16. Both the matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. (ITA No. 2216/Ahd/2018) First Ground:- This ground relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 14,62,72,303/- under Section 14A of the Act:- 2. The above addition was made by the Ld. AO under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rule without considering the fact that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year under consideration as the case made out by the assessee before him. In this regard, the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee drew our attention to pages 1 to 3 of the Paper Book being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co-ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2011-12; a copy whereof has also been submitted before us. The relevant observation made by the Bench on the identical issue is as follows:- "7. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the adjustment of Rs. 15,77,90,288/- made to book profit under s. 115JB in respect of the provision of Sec. 14A of the Act. The short point involved in this particular matter is as to whether the amount of disallowance u/s. 14A can be added to the book profit u/s. 115JB. In appeal the first appellate authority allowed the same following the decision passed by his predecessor for the earlier years i.e. A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2011-12 in assessee's own case. It is relevant to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the ratio laid down in the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the same we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the same is confirmed. Department's appeal is found to be devoid of any merit, and thus dismissed. 11. In the result, department's appeal is dismissed." Hence, we find no ambiguity in making such decision by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Ld. A.O. Hence, with the above observation we dismiss this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue. Ground No. 3:- 5. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of upward adjustment of Rs. 1,71,75,000/- made by the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(i) of the Act while determining Arms Length Price on the 'Corporate Guarantee' on the average value of loans provided by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of "corporate guarantee". Copy of the said judgment has also been submitted before us by the Ld. AR. However, Ld. DR failed to controvert such contention of the Ld. AR. 4. Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears that Ld. CIT(A) followed the order passed by his predecessor. Further that the Ld. Tribunal while dealing with the issue in ITA No. 2791/Ahd/2014 in favour of the assessee in Revenue's appeal discussed as follows:- "7. Similarly, the TP adjustment on account of corporate guarantee for working capital and Corporate guarantee for financing and other arrangements was considered by the Tribunal at Para 24 of its order. The relevant finding read as under:- 24. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus allowed in the terms indicated above. 26. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter that the view so take, by the coordinate bench, for the immediately preceding assessment year. We, therefore, uphold the grievances of the assessee and delete the impugned ALP adjustments. 27. As we have held that no such ALP adjustment is permissible, grievances raised by the Assessing Officer, with respect to quantification of ALP adjustment, are dismissed as infructuous. 28. As we part with the matter, we may add that a substantial question of law on this issue, in the case of Micro Ink Limited - the decision followed by us in coming to our aforesaid conclusions, has been admitted by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue and, therefore, we dismiss the same. C.O. No. 101/Ahd/2019(Assessee's Appeal):- 7. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in disallowing of Rs. 6,94,23,796/- in respect of Employees' Contribution to PF and ESI since assessee failed to deposit such sum within the prescribed due date in terms of the concerned rule. The Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee with all his fairness submitted that the issue has been decided against the assessee in view of the judgment passed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.). We, therefore, find no reason to entertain this particular gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
