TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rincipal CIT's order passed under section 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to complete a fresh assessment. We come to facts of the case. 3. This assessee - company is an integrated port and sales development business. It filed return on 25.09.2009 stating income of Rs. 21,50,85,734/-. The Assessing Officer completed regular assessment on 15.05.2013 inter alia making TP adjustment of Rs. 61,87,200/-, section 80IAB deduction disallowance of Rs. 13,86,27,839/- and Section 14A disallowance of Rs. 20,27,93,648; respectively. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) in his order dated 10.10.2014 confirmed section 14A disallowance hereinabove. He however accepted assessee's alternative contention and directed the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. It appears that the AO has not noticed the amendment in section 35D(1)(ii) w.e.f. 1.4.2009 and completed the assessment without disallowing the assessee's claim. 5. In view of the above, it appears to the undersigned that the order dated 15.05.2013 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue within the meaning of Section 263(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961." 5. The assessee filed reply inter alia pleading that the Assessing Officer had framed assessment as per law after making all enquiries and the disallowance in question under section 14A of the Act already stood confirmed. The CIT rejects the same in the order under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation allowed of Rs. 37,07,655/- is required to be withdrawn and to be added to the total income of the assessee. Further, as per the amended provisions of section 35D(l)(ii) w.e.f. 1- 4-2009, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 35D whereas the AO has allowed the deduction amounting to Rs. 14,74,336/-which requires to be withdrawn and added to total income of the assessee. Accordingly, it is held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dated 15.05.2013 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, the said assessment for A.Y.2009-10 is cancelled and the AO is directed to make fresh assessment of the total income of the assessee after taking into consideration the issues discussed above for the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts is that the assessment order in question sought to be revised does not have any independent existence. Even the issue on merit is rendered academic in view of CIT's order directing the Assessing Officer to compute section 80IAB deduction (supra). The Revenue fails to point any distinction on facts or law. We accept assessee's first argument in challenging the CIT's order in question. 7. We come to CIT's second reason for invoking a revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the issue of depreciation. He observes that the same ought to be claimed/granted at the rate of 10% instead of 15% on office equipments amounting to Rs. 74,15,309/- instead of Rs. 1,11,22,924/- respectively resulting in excess clam of Rs. 37,07,655/- Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present year, has been allowed by the A.O in earlier years in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) and those orders have attained finality. As far as the claim of deduction u/s. 35D is concerned it is not the case of the Revenue that the expenses have been incurred in the year under consideration but on the contrary it is assessee's submission that the same have been incurred in earlier years and the deduction u/s. 35D has also been allowed in earlier years. It is also not a case of the Revenue that on the issue of deduction under 35D, deduction for earlier years has been withdrawn by Revenue. In such a situation, without disturbing the earlier years, it cannot be said that the claim of deduction u/s. 35D was not allowable to the Asses....