TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the assessee is in respect of confirming the disallowance of Rs..22,94,152/- made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 3. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment invoking the provisions of Rule 8D2(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act disallowed Rs..38,04,497/-. On appeal Ld.CIT(A) deleted the interest disallowance made under Rule 8D2(ii) but sustained the disallowance made under Rule 8D2(iii). The only argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that, only the dividend yielding investments shall be considered for the purpose of computing the average investments and disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) and non-dividend yielding investments shall be excluded for computing the disallowance, in view of the decision of the Speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the head income from business and not under the head income from other sources. While holding so he observed that in the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 the interest received by the assessee was assessed as business income in the assessments completed u/s. 143(3) and therefore principle of consistence is required to be followed in tax matters when facts are identical. With these observations and also referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt Padma S. Bora [54 taxmann.com 319] he concluded that money lending licence is not precondition for having business income from money lending activity and therefore the interest received by the assessee is assessable under the head inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for business income rather than AO's Case. In Smt. Padma Bora's case (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that when the assessee is engaged in the business of money lending, her claim for deduction of bad debt could not be denied merely because she did not have licence to conduct that business- The relevant part of the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Mumbai in the case of Smt Padma Bora v. CIT-II, Pune as reported in 54 taxmann.com 319 (Bom) (2015) is reproduced here as under: - "5. Having perused this paragraph carefully, we find that the Tribunal may have committed a mistake in erroneous reproduction of the Commissioner's findings, but that does not mean that the Appeal would raise any su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue. Following the principle of consistency, 1 hold that interest of Rs. 25,26,58,443/ received by the appellant on loans and advances given to various persons is business income. The fact that there was no mention of money lending activity as business in Form 3CD also cannot be a ground to hold otherwise when interest income was assessed as business income in the past. Ground No.5 is allowed." 11. On a careful perusal of the observations of the Ld.CIT(A), we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A). Hence the same is sustained. Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. Coming to the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13. This ground is similar to the ground raised by the as....