TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce common question of law and facts Assessee by: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee by: Capt. Pradeep Arya involved in these appeals, therefore, these appeals are being taken up together for adjudication. ITA NO. 3595/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2008-09):- 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- "1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,185,545 under Section 14A of the Act. Without prejudice to above, the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the computation made by the AO, by including investments, the income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, in the average value of investments under Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-11 dated 13.07.2010. Thereafter notice u/s.142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated 30.09.2010 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is in the business of providing Engineering Consultancy service. During the year, income from services has been shown to the tune of Rs. 192.99 crores. The major expenditure was on account of employees which amount to Rs. 89.70 crores. In the Profit & Loss A/c. the profit before tax has been shown at Rs. 45.17 crores. During the relevant assessment year the assessee earned the dividend/exempt income to the tune of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,11,23,750/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain on Mutual Fund and Rs. 31,55,355/- on account of other income from mutual funds. The assessee did not d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income from mutual funds of Rs. 31,55,355/-, therefore in the said circumstances the assessee did not incur any expenses to earn the income from mutual fund which is long term capital gain, therefore, the income from mutual fund is not liable to be considered for the purpose of section 14 read with Rule 8D of the Act specifically in view of the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. ACIT (265 CTR 385). On the other hand the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee earned the Long Term Capital Gain on mutual fund of Rs. 1,11,23,750 and other income from mutual funds of Rs. 31,55,355/-. It is long term investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expenditure on lease hold is revenue in nature and also relied upon the law settled in CIT Vs. Talathi & Panthaki Associates (P.) Ltd. (343 ITR 309) (Bom.) and CIT Vs. HEDE Consultancy (P.) Ltd. (258 ITR 380) (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. (175 Taxman 132) (Delhi) and Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd. Vs. DCIT (48 taxmann.com 156) (ITAT Mumbai) and Peri India (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT (71 taxmann.com 79)(ITAT Mumbai). On the other hand Ld representative of the department has placed reliance upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. 6. Keeping in view of the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perusing the concerned record it came into the notice that the assessee took some premises on le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im for depreciation of Rs. 1,43,45,844/- in respect of earlier years. At the very outset the learned representative of the assessee has argued that this issue has been covered by the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y.2007-08. The order of the Tribunal has been perused which is reproduced as under for ready reference:- "12. Third ground of appeal pertains to claim for depreciation of Rs. 1.42 Crores. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee made a claim of further additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,25,87,517/- due to difference in depreciation rate from 25% to 60% for the A.Y.2004-05 and 2005-06. It was contended that assessee had claimed depreciation, @ 25% instead of 60%. The FAA rejected t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground no.3 is decided in favour of the assessee, in part." 8. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that this issue is require to be adjudicated in view of the directions made by the Tribunal in the above mentioned case. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard and remanded this issue on the file of the Assessing Officer to decide this issue after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ITA NO.6786/MUM/2012 (A.Y.2009-10):- 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- "1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred i....