AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2005-06 as the lead case. ITA No. 1166/Del/2012 for AY 2005-06 3. The grounds of appeal raised in the instant appeal are as under: 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in fact and in law by not deleting the addition made by learned Assessing Officer an amount of Rs. 15,75,000/- being administrative charges on Andrews Ganj Project. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has erred in fact and in law by not deleting the addition made by learned Assessing Officer an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- being prior period expenditure. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in fact and in law by not deleting the addition made by Learned Assessing Officer an amount of Rs. 30,20,512/- being depreciation on estimated increase in cost of properties. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in fact and in law by not deleting the addition made by learned Assessing Officer an amount of Rs. 3,07,77,527/- being financial charges written off. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in fact and in law by not deleting the addition made by Learned Assessing Officer an amount of Rs. 3,27,500/- being dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alance-sheet that in the year under consideration, work of Rs. 10.5 crores was executed by the assessee in respect of the 'Andrew Ganj Project' and as per the terms of the allotment of project, the assessee was to be reimbursed the cost of the project, interest on the funds utilized on the project and 1.5% of the project cost as administrative charges but no income from administrative charges was shown by the assessee, in the year under consideration . The ld. Assessing Officer further noticed that in assessment year 2001-02, the assessee reversed the administrative charges stating that after completion of the commercial portion of the complex, no further administrative charges were payable to the assessee by the Ministry of Urban Development. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the administrative charges were intended to cover overhead expenses in relation to the entire project done and not restricted to the commercial projects only. Following the stand taken by the ld. Assessing Officer in assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04, he added administrative charges at the rate of 1.5 percent. of the project cost of Rs. 10.5 crores amounting to Rs. 15.75 lakhs to the income of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation to the residential quarters from the Government of India. We had also recorded the submission of the assessee that the assessee never received 1.5% as administrative expenses for construction of the residential quarters. 9. During the hearing today, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue has filed before us a letter dated 25th September, 2014 of the Assessing Officer, accepting and admitting that on verification it has been ascertained that overhead charges were leviable by the assessee only in respect of Andrews Ganj community centre and not on the development of residential flats at the Andrews Ganj Project. The said letter has been kept on record. 10. Normally, we would have remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the minutes of meeting held on 7th September, 1995, but in view of the facts now elucidated and accepted by the Revenue, we are not inclined to pass an order or remit. It would be a formality. It is an accepted position that the appellant-assesee had never received 1.5% administrative expenses in respect of the residential quarters in Andrews Ganj project. Clearly, therefore, the stand of the appellant-assessee that the not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it had also accounted for prior period income of Rs. 712 lakhs, and thus, the assessee has offered net prior period income of Rs. 647 lakhs. However, the ld CIT(A) following the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2004-05, sustained the disallowance. 6.1 Before us, the ld. AR submitted that on the identical issue in the case of assessee for assessment year 2002-03, the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for verification whether those expenses crystallized in the year under consideration. 6.2 The ld. CIT (DR), on the other hand, relying on the order of the ld CIT(A) submitted that the assessee failed to establish whether those expenses actually accrued or crystallized in the year under consideration. 6.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself in ITA No. 686/Del/2006 for assessment year 2002-03, wherein the Tribunal has held as under: "10. We have carefully considered the submission of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. It is a settled law that when the assessee is following mercantile s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 510.12 lacs was made for 32 properties valuing Rs. 5101.21 lacs for which lease deeds were yet to be executed. Further, the assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the company was making payment of such liability in subsequent years. The ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2004-05, sustained the disallowance. 7.1 Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the liability of the stamp duty being an ascertained liability, it was duly allowable in the year under consideration. He further relied on the judgment of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) and submitted that all the three elements mentioned in the said judgement, which constitute recognition of a provisional liability, were present in the case of the assessee. 7.2 On the other hand, ld. CIT (DR) relying on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the charges on which the depreciation has been claimed are in the nature of cost of improvement to the property and should be considered for depreciation at the time of payment only. 7.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed in Income-tax Rules. Thus to compute the depreciation three things should be identified. The first is the Block of Asset, second, the written down value of Block of Asset and third the rate of depreciation. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the rate of depreciation. Further, the block of assets has been defined in section 2(11) of the Act as group of assets falling within a class of assets in respect of which same percentage of depreciation is prescribed, and thus there is no dispute as what is block of assets in case of Immovable properties, because any property purchased during the year will get added to the block and property sold will be eliminated from the block. Now, the only issue of dispute left in the case of the assessee is what should be the written down value of the block of asset of immovable properties and whether the stamp duty and registration charges estimated at the rate of ten percent. is part of written down value of the block of asset. The written down value has been defined in section 43(6) of the Act as under: "43(6) "written down value" means- (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime of registration, and when that event will happen is not certain in the case of the assessee and thus claiming depreciation on the basis of prior estimate of cost to the asset is not justified. 7.7 Further, ld. CIT(DR) stated that identical disallowances were made by the ld. AO in AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 and same were confirmed by the ld CIT(A) but the issue was not challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal in those years, and thus the rule of consistency requires that the assessee should not have challenged the issue in current year, once it has accepted the position in earlier years. 7.8 In view of above discussion, we uphold the disallowance of claim of the depreciation on estimated stamp duty or registration. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed. 8. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of financial charges written off of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-, claimed in the computation of income. According to ld. Assessing Officer the expenses were towards issue of bonds, debentures, term loans etc., and therefore he held the expenses as capital in nature being for the purpose of extension of business of the assessee, in view of the judgment of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer, I sustain the disallowance of Rs. 3,07,77,527/-. Appeal on this ground is dismissed. 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the issue in dispute was restored back to the ld Assessing Officer by the Tribunal for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The learned CIT(DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Consistent with the view taken in paragraph 16 the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2002-03 in ITA No. 686/Del/2006 and paragraph 10 of the order for assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No. 687/Del/2006 in the assessee's own case, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground no. 5 is regarding the issue of disallowance of Rs. 3,27,500/- under Section 14A of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the dividend income of Rs. 13,10,000/- was claimed as exempt by the assessee, however, no expenses corresponding of the same was disallowed by the assessee under Section 14A of the Act. The explanation of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income of the assessee. Therefore, any expenditure for earning exempt income is not allowable under Section 14A. In view of the above, the assessee was asked to give details of expenses incurred by it for earning the dividend income. The assessee has submitted that no expenditure has been incurred by it for earning the same. The submission of the assessee is not acceptable. There are always some expenses related to earning an income. Even the decision of keeping an investment for long period is taken after due deliberation and opinion of the management at the higher level. Further, the assessee is raising borrowed funds for its business and maintaining the investment portfolio on which the dividend is earned has its own cost. Therefore, the expenses on earning exempt income would include interest and administrative expense. Since, there is no segregation of expenses related to investment/earning of exempt income, the expenditure relating to earning the exempt income is estimated at 25% of the exempt income. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United General Trust Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 488. Here, 25% of divide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) agreed with the findings of the ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, he sustained the addition. 10.1 The ld. AR submitted that the interest on non-performing assets was recognized by the assessee following the recent guidelines of the National Housing Banks made effective from 31.03.2005. Though, the Rule 6EB of the Rules has been made on the basis of guidelines of the National Housing Banks only, but the Rule 6EB was not amended, despite the renewed guidelines issued by the National Housing Banks with effect from 31.03.2005. He further submitted that in assessment year in consideration i.e.2005-06, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 50% of deduction claimed by the assessee against such interest de-recognized, which was confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). He further submitted that in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007- 08, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 100% of deduction claimed against interest de-recognized, however, the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has restricted the disallowance to 50% and in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion or a State industrial investment corporation, the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad or doubtful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation to such debts; (b) in the case of a public company, the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad or doubtful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the National Housing Bank in relation to such debts, shall be chargeable to tax in the previous year in which it is credited by the public financial institution or the scheduled bank or the State financial corporation or the State industrial investment corporation or the public company to its profit and loss account for that year or, as the case may be, in which it is actually received by that institution or bank or corporation or company, whichever is earlier." 10.5 On perusal of the clause (b) of the section we notice that the assessee was having an option of recognizing the interest income on accrual or cash basis from prescribed category of nonperforming assets (bad and doubtful debt). This category was prescribed by the CBDT in rules 6EB of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rule making authority has enacted Rule 6EB of the Rules. The rule so enacted originally was in conformity with the guidelines issued by NHB. The guidelines were revised by NHB in the year 2004 but the rule making authority did not think it fit to revise the rules to be in conformity with the revised guidelines. In our view it cannot be said that the guidelines of the NHB as and when they are revised have to be treated by implication incorporated in Rule 6EB of the Rules. NHB is not the rule making authority for the purposes of Sec.43D of the Act. The discretion is left to the rule making authority to follow or not follow the guidelines of NHB as and when they are revised. The purpose of classification of debts as bad and doubtful by the NHB and the purpose of not recognising interest income for the purposes of the Act, are different. The considerations that weigh with the relevant authorities are also different. Therefore it cannot be said that the rule making authority under the Act has to automatically follow the guidelines of NHB as they exist from time to time. In that view of the matter, we cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee, that the gui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered doubtful of recovery, otherwise called sticky advances, by debiting the concerned parties but instead of carrying it to its profit and loss account credited the same to a separate account styled "Interest Suspense Account" as the principal amounts of these sticky advances themselves had become, not bad or irrecoverable but extremely doubtful of recovery. However, in its returns, the assessee disclosed such interest separately and claimed that the same was not taxable in its hands as income for the concerned years. The Hon'ble supreme Court on the taxability of interest income on accrual basis held as follows: "1) It is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable. Whether the income has really accrued or arisen to the assessee must be judged in the light of the reality of the situation. (2) The concept of real income would apply where there has been a surrender of income which in theory may have accrued but in the reality of the situation, no income had resulted because the income did not really accrue. (3) Where a debt has become bad, deduction in compliance with the provisions of the Act should be claimed and allowed. (4) Where the Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer is satisfied that there is really little probability of the loans being repaid. It was considered desirable to extend this principle to banks which, instead of transferring the doubtful debts to a suspense account, credit the interest on such debts to that account provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that recovery is practically improbable." This circular was in force till June 20, 1978, when the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular dated June 20, 1978, withdrawing with immediate effect the earlier circular of October 6, 1952. The reason for the withdrawal of the circular of 1952 was the decision of the Kerala High Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 336 wherein a view was expressed that in such cases income would accrue under mercantile system of accounting. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, however, issued another circular of October 9, 1984, under which the Central Board of Direct Taxes decided that "interest in respect of doubtful debts credited to suspense account by the banking companies will be subjected to tax but interest charged in an account where there has been no recovery for three consecutive accounting years will not be sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law or in other permissible manners as laid down in section 119. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which can be properly categorised as belonging to a class, can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities. The question whether interest earned, on what have come to be known as "sticky" loans, can be considered as income or not until actual realisation, is a question which may arise before several Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were given the benefit of the circular of October 9, 1984, does not appear to have been pointed out to the court. What was submitted before the court was, that since such interest had been allowed to be exempted for more than half a century, the practice had transformed itself into law and this position should not have been deviated from. Negativing this contention, the court said that the question of how far the concept of real income enters into the question of taxability in the facts and circumstances of the case, and how far and to what extent the concept of real income should intermingle with the accrual of income, will have to be judged "in the light of the provisions of the Act, the principles of accountancy recognised and followed, and feasibility". The court said that the earlier circulars being executive in character cannot alter the provisions of the Act. These were in the nature of concessions which could always be prospectively withdrawn. The court also observed that the circulars cannot detract from the Act. The decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198, or the subsequent decision in K.P. Varghese v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Courts notice. In that view of the matter, we agree with the submission of the learned D.R. that real income theory would be relevant but would have no application so as to defeat the provisions of the Act. In our view provisions of Sec.43D lay down the limits upto which interest income of bad and doubtful debts in the case of public companies need not be recognised as income, in a case where Assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. By implication it also lays down that any claim that interest income as not having accrued over and above the limits laid down by the Rules, should not be accepted. The claim of the Assessee in our view is therefore contrary to the provisions of Sec.43D and the claim of the Assessee based on real income theory and there being no real accrual of income cannot be accepted. 21. That leaves us with the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (supra) and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Elgi Finance Ltd. (supra). In the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.(supra), the Assessee was a non-banking finance company bound by the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. In compliance with the Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciples subject to the provisions of the Act. The provisions of Sec.43D lay down the limits upto which interest income of bad and doubtful debts in the case of public companies need not be recognised as income, in a case where Assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. By implication it also lays down that any claim that interest income as not having accrued over and above the limits laid down by the Rules, should not be accepted. The claim of the Assessee in our view is therefore contrary to the provisions of Sec.43D and cannot therefore the claim of the Assessee based on real income theory and there being no real accrual of income cannot be accepted. Thus the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Rather the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies (supra) alone will apply. We therefore reject the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the Assessee. For the reasons stated above, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the Assessee. 10.6 The above decision has been further followed by the Tribunal in the case of that as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer. 11.1 Before us, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the loan in question were made to the Government Institution and were restructured from time to time. Further, he submitted that it was a commercial decision of the assessee whether the receipt from the customer has to be adjusted first against the principal or the interest and the Revenue cannot sit on the judgment. He further submitted that this was otherwise revenue neutral exercise that provisions for bad debt in respect of the principal amount is also allowable to the assessee under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. He further relied on the judgment in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2007) AIR 482; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. 345 ITR 241 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B. Dalmia Cement Ltd., 254 ITR 377. 11.2 On the other hand, the learned CIT (DR) submitted that the dispute arose due to the treatment of recovery amount by the agencies. He further submitted that the assessee had not made any claim of bad debts under Section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act in respect of the principal written off. He further relied on the order of the lower ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee was spreading the expenses related to forward contact of foreign exchange over the period of the transaction but in the year under consideration the assessee charged entire expenses of the forward contract transaction . It was explained by the assessee that this change on accounting policy was done in compliance of the guidance note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). However, in subsequent year, the assessee again reverted to the old accounting policy and it was explained that it was done due a clarification issued by the ICAI in an article in the Economics Times of India. The ld Assessing officer was of the view that expenses was to be allowed as per regular accounting followed by the assessee and accrual and matching concept of income, therefore, he made an addition of Rs. 1.25 crores on account of change of accounting. 12.1 Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee submitted that the changes in the accounting policy was made in order to comply with the clarification issued by the ICAI, however, subsequently observed that the clarification was not applicable to the company, the company itself reverted back to its original accounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal is dismissed accordingly. 13. Ground no. 9 is in respect of not considering the mistakes or omissions in the revised return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on account of mistakes in item mentioned in para 14 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that those items were not in the nature of mistakes and omissions and therefore, the conditions of Section 139(5) were not applicable and therefore he did not give any cognizance to the revised return of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 13.1 Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the original return was in time and therefore, the assessee was entitled to revise the return under Section 139(5) of the Act. He further submitted that the revision was on account of certain expenses or revenue crystallizing the relevant year. He further submitted that this was only revenue in nature. If the assessee is not allowed certain income or expenses in the current year, then he would be entitled for the same for another year. He further relied on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, the reference to one year aforesaid shall be construed as a reference to two years from the end of the relevant assessment year." 10. A bare reading of the aforesaid section makes it clear that the assessee may file a revised return if it discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein. Insofar as the present case is concerned, there is no omission or wrong statement which required the assessee to file a revised return. The reason for filing the revised return was only that the company had passed a resolution to change its method of valuation of the closing stock because it did not correctly show the profit or loss for each accounting year, and that the new method adequately reflected the position in regard to the previous year's operations. This meant that the assessee would show a loss of Rs. 4,01,290 instead of Rs. 3,00,369 declared with the return filed initially. 11. In Ram Luxman Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the Allahabad High Court accepted the contention of the assessee that there could be a change in the method of valuing the opening stock and the closing stock in the same financial year provided there wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... otherwise is not clear from the facts brought on record by the lower authorities, and thus, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the ld Assessing Officer and decide the issue in accordance to the law. The ground of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 4303/Del/2009, AY 2004-05 14.1 Ground no. 1 is in respect of disallowance of interest payable to the Government by treating the same as notional expenses. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the issue was covered in the assessee's own case by the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench passed for assessment year 2000-01. 14.1 Learned CIT (DR), on the other hand, submitted that the fact needs to be ascertained whether the interest was actually paid in the subsequent year or not. 14.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The relevant para of the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the assessee's own case passed for the assessment year 2000-01 is reproduced as under: "4.1 In so far as the question whether the assessee was a debtor of the Government o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land has been incurred by the assessee as it formed part and parcel of the sale agreement. Therefore, the difficulty in estimating the expenditure would not convert this liability into a contingent liability. If the revenue was not satisfied with the estimate of liability entered by the assessee in the books, it could have estimated the liability on a reasonable basis. However, the whole of the amount could not have been disallowed simply because the liability was to be discharged at a future date and its exact amount was not known. We find that the correspondence between the assessee and the Government of India does lead to fastening of interest liability on the assessee in respect of surplus funds account. This was tentatively agreed by the Ministry also. This liability cannot be said to be unascertained liability simply because the Ministry was also to take a final view on the project and the interest rate at a future date. Thus, while the Assessing Officer could have estimated the liability on the basis of the correspondence, he could not have disallowed the whole of the liability. From the correspondence between the assessee and the Government, it is clear that the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to the ld. AO relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra). The ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, relying on the order of lower authorities submitted that the disallowance made by the AO was most reasonable. 18.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in dispute in the year under consideration is identical to AY 2005-06 in ITA No. 1166/Del/2012 except that in the year under consideration the assessee has not raised the issue of non recording of dissatisfaction by the ld AO under section 14A(2) of the Act. Thus the issue in dispute is duly covered by the ground No. 5 decided in ITA No. 1166/Del/2012 for Assessment Year 2005-06, we accordingly, following our finding in relevant paragraphs, restore the matter to the ld. AO for determination of issue in dispute in accordance to the judgment of Maxopp investment Ltd. (supra). 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1168/Del/2012 for AY : 2007-08 20. Grounds no. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1168/Del/2012 are identical to grounds no. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 raised by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 934 of 2011 and other decisions of the Tribunal, the ld AR submitted that the disallowance if at all is to be made under section 14A of the Act, then same may be restricted to 2percent. of the exempted income. The Ld CIT DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of considered opinion that the application of Rule 8D of the IT Rules from AY 2008-09 has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) subject to recording of dissatisfaction by the AO regarding correctness of the claim of the assessee. Further, in the judgment in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held as under: "9. In the present case, the AO has not firstly disclosed why the appellant/assessee's claim for attributing Rs. 2,97,440/- as a disallowance under Section 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha says that the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after examination of the accounts and rejection if any of the assessee's claim or explanation. The second aspect is there appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration are identical to the facts and circumstances in the assessment year 2008-09 and thus following the findings in ITA No. 3365/Del/2013 for assessment year 2008-09, we decide the issue accordingly. 27. The ground no. 7 raised by the assessee is in respect of the mismatch in tax deducted at source (TDS) claimed by the assessee and the credit for the same allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has not given any finding in his order on this issue. The learned Authorized Representative submitted for allowing the credit claimed by the assessee, whereas the learned CIT (DR) fairly accepted that the credit may be allowed subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. 27.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As the issues is of the verification, whether the income corresponding to the tax deducted were shown in the return of income then the Assessing Officer is bound to allow the TDS credit claimed by the assessee, therefore, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say, that the assessee will be given opportun....