TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome 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 income from business. 9. Before us, Ld. DR vehemently suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'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 substantial question of law. The allowability of bad debts was a claim cons....