TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the department confirming the order of CIT(A). 2. This Court while admitting the matter framed the following questions of law:- In DBITA No. 202/2017 "i) Whether the Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition made by way of disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act?" ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,35,708/- made by the Assessing Officer on delayed payment of employees contribution of ESI and PF." iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,53,22,418/- made by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the decision of this Court in CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 against which SLP is preferred therefore, in view of the earlier decision taken by this Court, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee subject to SLP pending before the Supreme Court. 4.3. The issue No.3 is regarding 14A. Now the issue is governed by the decision of Supreme Court the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. reported in 394 ITR 449 wherein it has been held as under:- "36. Section 14A as originally enacted by the Finance Act of 2001 with effect from 1.4.1962 is in the same form and language as currently appearing in Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght into force. It is on such consideration that findings have been recorded that the expenditure in question bore no relation to the earning of the dividend income and hence the Assessee was entitled to the benefit of full exemption claimed on account of dividend income. 37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the Assessee. Whether such dete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the principle of res judicata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, the need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case. In this regard we may remind ourselves of what has been observed by this Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR (SC) 321 [At Page 329]. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessm....