TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... family members of Shri Zavareh Soli Poonawalla (in short 'ZSP'). Assessments were completed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Assessee declared undisclosed income during the search action for the A.Y. 2008-09, the Assessee filed the return of income declaring income of Rs. 44,04,56,248/-. Assessment was completed on the total income of Rs. 62,94,29,653/- after granting exemption u/s.10B of the Act. CIT(A) gave part relief in the First Appellate proceedings and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Against the part relief granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Similarly, aggrieved with the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. We shall take up the Revenue's appeal first. ITA No.1537/PUN/2015 (By Revenue - A.Y. 2008-09) 4. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue relates to exclusion of Freight and Insurance from the Total turnover for the purpose of quantifying the deduction u/s.10B of the Act. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to Ground Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2006-07 and Ground Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal order (ITA No.914/PN/2013) was decided in connection with the regular assessment and the AO proceeded to repeat the same in the search assessment also. The said order of the Tribunal was not available to the AO who made the present assessment u/s.153A. Considering the same, we are of the view that the Tribunal has already come to an opinion on this issue. Therefore, for this reason also, the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates the allowability of deduction paid by the assessee to the Coast Guard u/s.37(1) of the Act. 12. After hearing both the sides, we find this addition is also a repeat of the one which was already made by the AO during the course of assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2008-09. When the said issue reached the Tribunal in assessee's own case vide ITA No.914/PUN/2013 order dated 22-07-2016, the Tribunal vide discussion given Para No.51 to 53 of the order granted relief to the assessee. For the sake of completeness, relevant Para No.52 53 are extracted as under : "52. The Ld AR submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly, following the decision of Coordinate Bench we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee." 16. Considering the above stated position and the decision of the Tribunal on same facts in the assessee's own case for same A.Y. 2008-09, we are of the opinion that the order of CIT(A) for this reason also do not call for any interference. Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue in this regard is dismissed. ITA No.1183/PUN/2015 (By Assessee - A.Y. 2008-09) 17. Ground No. 1(a) to (c) relates to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(ii) of the I.T. Rules, 1961. In the assessment made u/s.153A of the Act, the AO quantified the said disallowance under the said Section/Rules at Rs. 1.40 crores (rounded off). CIT(A) confirmed the same. While explaining the facts, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to the background facts and submitted that the assessment was originally made in this case by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act and the disallowance was originally determined at Rs. 4.11 crores (rounded off). On finding the mistakes, the AO rectified his order and passed a rectification order dated 04-02-2011 revising the disallowance to only Rs. 64,03,323/- under clause (ii) and (iii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the working of disallowance at page 144 of the paper book. We are of the considered view that this issue needs a revisit to the file of AO for the limited purpose to verify, whether the interest bearing funds were diverted by the assessee for making investments. The Assessing Officer after making necessary verification shall decide this issue in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported as 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). Accordingly, ground No.3 raised by the assessee in its appeal is allowed for statistical purpose." 22. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that these issues are not only covered in favour of the assessee vide the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.1074/PN/2014 dated 30-11-2016 and also in view of the that there is no seized material linked to these issues. Accordingly, Ground 1(a) to (c) are allowed as above. 23. With regard to Ground Nos.2 to 8 raised by the assessee, we find these are the issues where the AO made similar additions in the regular assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act. Further, all the issues raised ab....