TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee's own case in ITA No.3428/Mum/2013 (AY-2009-10) and ITA No.3737/Mum/2013(AY-2009-10) dated 1.6.2016 and therefore, the ground taken by the assessee should be allowed. 4. The ld. DR appeared fairly agreed to the submissions of the ld.AR. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the orders of authorities below and order of coordinate bench relied upon by the assessee. We find from the order of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee (supra) the issue raised by the assessee stands covered vide para 8 of the order, wherein it has been held as under : "8. We have considered the submissions of the assessee in detail and gone through the judgments relied upon by it. We have also gone through the orders of the lowers authorities and submissions of the ld. DR. W have read the agreement entered into between the Godrej group and Interbrand, UK for improvements in the Godrej brand. It is a matter of public knowledge that brand "Godrej" has been existing for last many years. The terms of the agreement itself suggest that desired improvements were required to be made in the Godrej brand which already existed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the clear position of law as discussed above, we hold these expenses are revenue expenses and direct the Assessing Officer to treat the same as such and allow the same and, therefore, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 9. Grounds 2 to 6: in these grounds, the assessee has challenged the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A on account of interest. During the course of hearing it was submitted by the Id.counsel that investment in tax free securities was for strategic reasons and that own funds of the assessee were in excess of investment in the tax free securities. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee's own case for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 vide order dated 5.9.2014 decided identical issue in favour of the assessee. In assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal in assessee's own case vide order dated 7.10.2015 I ITA No.ITA No.424/Mum/2012 also decided the issue in favour of the assessee in principle but sent it back to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verification of facts." 6. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....profit as per provisions of sec. 115JB of the Act. While adjudicating ground No.1 to 7 above, the undersigned has held that expenditure of Rs. 3,91,46,500/ - was pertaining to earning of exempt income and therefore, was disallowable as per provisions of sec. 14A(l) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances, the AO is directed to reduce the book profit by the amount of exempted gross dividend income. The AO is also directed to increase book profit to the extent of expenditure held to be relatable to earning of exempt dividend income. These grounds of appeal are therefore, partly allowed" Following the above order, A.O. is directed to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 6.44 crores as disallowance of expenditure u./s.14A of the IT Act instead of Rs. 27,92,00,000/-. Disallowance u/s.14A in earlier grounds of appeal is only Rs. 6.44 crores, hence, A.O. is directed to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 6.44 crores. Relief granted to the appellant is Rs. 21,18,OO,OOO/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed." Following the above decision, A.Os addition is confirmed for sec.115JB. However, addition of sec.115JB is restricted to disallowance confirmed in the previous ground of ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) should be upheld. 14. We have heard both the parties on the issue and perused material placed before us including the impugned orders of the authorities below and the case law relied upon by the assessee. We find from the records before us that the assessee has made strategic investments in the sister concerns which is undisputed which in our opinion should not be considered for the purpose of disallowance of interest under rule 8D(2)(ii)& (iii) as the motive behind the said investments are not for earning dividend income but made from strategic perspectives. The case of the assessee stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.424/M/2012(supra), wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue u/r 80D(2)(ii) and (iii) in favour of the assessee vide para 11 and 12 of the order which read as under : "11. Having said all that in the light of the decision of the Tribunal given in earlier assessment years and the relevant portion as exhibited hereinabove, the assessee raised a new plea during this year and claimed that the investments made in the companies are strategic investments which have been made for business purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07-08) vide para 30 and in ITA No.3428/Mum/2013 and 3737/Mum/2013, para 11,12 and 13. In view of the fair admission of the ld.AR, we do not want to interfere in the decision of Tribunal and accordingly dismiss these grounds. 18. Ground no.10 taken by the assessee pertains to confirmation of disallowance by the ld.CIT(A) in respect of amortization premium paid for leasehold land as made by the AO. 19. At the time of hearing, the ld.AR admitted before the Tribunal that an identical issue had come up before this Tribunal in number of appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No.1900/Mumn/2011, 1614/Mum/2011 (AY-2006-07) order dated 5.9.2014 (para15), ITA No.4621/Mum/2011 and 3136/Mum/2011 (AY-2007-08), order dated 5.9.2014 (para 33), ITA No.424/Mum/2012 (AY-2008-09) order dated 7.10.2015 (para 13 and 14) and also in ITA No.3428/Mum/2013 and 3737/Mum/2013 (Y 2009-10) which decided the issue against the assessee and in view of the said decisions the ground raised should be dismissed . 20. In view of the above admission of the ld. AR, we confirm the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground taken by the assessee. 21. The issue raised in ground no.11 by the assessee pertain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntal paid during the year on the lease of cars aggregating to Rs. 88,52,212/- as a capital expenditure and disallowing the same and granting depreciation thereon. We find that the issue raised by the assessee in this ground is identical to one decided by the coordinate bench in its own case in ITA No ITA No.3428/Mum/2013 and 3737/Mum/2013 (AY 2009-10) vide para 21 which is extracted below: "21. It is brought to our notice that the expenditure on lease rental is incurred as common expenditure for the whole group. Same fleet of cars is shared between group companies. Lease agreement is same. Other facts are also identical. The lower authorities have also relied upon the order of Godrej Consumer Product Ltd for making disallowance which was subsequently reversed by the ITAT. Thus, in the given facts, order of the ITAT has to be applied in the case of assessee company's facts also. Thus, respectfully following the order of the co-ordinate bench, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and hold that the rent of lease rental has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO is directed to be deleted". Respectfully following the decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 19 of the order, the ld.CIT(A) has allowed ground of the assessee's appeal instead of sending back the issue to the file of the AO. The ld. AR argued before us that the issue can only be decided with a direction to the AO according to the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own be directed to be followed by the AO. 34. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the ld.CIT(A) after giving detailed observations and finding in para 8.3 wrongly stated the ground of appeal to be allowed. For the sake of convenience the para 8.3 is reproduced below : "8.3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. This issue had come into consideration of CIT(A) in A.Y.2008-09 wherein in para 9.3 it is held as under: "9.3 I have considered the facts of the case. This issue has come into consideration of CIT(A) in A Y.2008-09 wherein para 5.3 it was held as under: (5.3 I have considered the facts of the case. The facts of the issue under consideration are identical to that of A Y.2007-08. In appeal order did. 03.02.2011, the undersiqned decided this issue as under: "5.1 I have consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese grounds of appeal are adjudicated accordingly Following the above decision, this around of appeal is allowed." 35. We find that the issue has been dealt with by us in ground no.11 of ITA No.151/Mum/2015 (supra). In view of the above, decision, we sent back this issue back to the file of the AO for verification of the facts and then decide the issue in accordance with law after providing necessary opportunity of the hearing to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 36. Grounds of appeal No.4 taken by the revenue reads as under : 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in-not appreciating the fact that the additional depreciation u/s 32(ii)(a) is only applicable in the first year of installation of Plant & Machinery and not subsequent years, even though when the asset is utilized for a period of less than 180 days. " 37. At the outset, the ld.AR submitted that the issue raised in this ground stands covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA NO.6438/Mum/2013(AY-2007-08) order dated 1.6.2015 and in ITA No.3428/Mum/2013 and 3737/Mum/2013 (AY 2009-10), dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vour of the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. We find that the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, was introduced vide Finance Act, 2002 (effective from the assessment year 2003-04) with a view to give boost to the manufacturing sector, therefore, it was proposed to allow additional depreciation of a sum equal to 15% (over and above normal depreciation) of the actual cost of such plant and machinery acquired and installed after 31st March 2002. This was sort of incentive to the assessee to invest and acquire plant and machinery to expand the manufacturing capacity. The Finance Act, 2005, further amended section 32, to increase the rate of additional depreciation to 20% on new plant and machinery and dispensed with the condition of additional depreciation which to be allowed only to a new industrial undertaking. The provision was explained by CBDT, Circular no.8 of 2002. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s Cosmo Films Ltd. (ITA no.2831/Del./2007), held that in section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the expression used is "shall be allowed". Thus, the assessee company earned the benefit as soon as it has purchased new plant and machine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case are that the claim under section 80HHC was withdrawn by the assessee on account of retrospective amendment in section 115JB of Act for calculation of book profits.AO charged interest under section 234B by ignoring the facts of the advance tax was duly deposited by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act prevalent on the statute book during the financial year. The ld. DR submitted before us that in view of the retrospective amendment the AO has rightly charged on withdrawal of section 80HHC and order of the AO be upheld and that of ld.CIT(A) be set aside. 41. The ld.AR while referring to the provisions of section 234B submitted that the amendment in subsequent year cannot be taken course of by the AO to calculate the interest under section 234B of the Act and accordingly prayed to uphold the order of FAA. The ld. AR admitted that the advance tax was paid on the basis of provisions of law prevalent during the financial year and the return of income was filed accordingly. The ld. AR further submitted that the amendment to section 115JB which is retrospective in nature was made by Finance Act, 2011 much after the due date for payment of advances and due date for filing of....