9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 16.02.2016. 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 186 days as the order of CIT(A) was received by assessee on 24.02.2020 and appeal was to be filed before Tribunal on or before 25.04.2020, instead the appeal was filed by assessee only on 27.10.2020 thereby delay of 186 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit and stated that the delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d loss of Rs.37,08,705/- arising out of foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of foreign loss obtained by assessee. The AO disallowed the loss claimed on the ground that the amounts were utilized for acquisition of assets and hence, capital in nature. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that gain on fluctuations on account of foreign currency loan taken to acquire fixed capital asset will be treated as capital receipt. Hence, loss on fluctuation on account of foreign currency loans taken to acquire fixed capital assets will be a capital loss. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee explained tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red any asset from any country outside India for the purpose of its business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered this asset in para 12 & 13 as under:- 12. Learned counsel for the department had also relied on the decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Elecon Engineering Company Limited. This decision is on the question of application of Section 43A of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the exposition in this decision will be of no avail to the fact situation of the present case. For, we have already noticed that the appellant had not acquired any asset from any country outside India for the purpose of his business. 13. In view of the above, this appeal ought to succeed. The impugned judgment and order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.rule 8D of the Rules amounting to Rs.61,513/-.
8.1 We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has received dividend income during the year to the tune of Rs.8,56,909/- and the disallowance is merely a sum of Rs.61,513/-. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee did not make any submission qua which limb of Rule 8D, disallowance is made, he could not brought out any submissions. Hence, we dismiss this ground of assessee.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2022 at Chennai. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
