TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 71,35,647/- which was added by the AO by making disallowance out of claim of prior period expenses. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income 26.9.2008 declaring total income at NIL. Assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 20.12.2011 determining total income at Rs. 25,88,72,888/-. The AO has made various disallowance. The dispute travelled upto the Tribunal in ITA No.8/Ahd/2013 and ITA No.385/Ahd/2013. The Tribunal has remitted the issue with regard to the claim of prior period expenses and this remittance was made on the strength of finding recorded by the Tribunal in the Asstt.Year 2006-07. The facts in this regard are that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,18,06,240/-as prior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st issue is with regard to crystallization of liabilities on account of prior period expenses in the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide para 11 (Page No. 12 of the order) directed the assesse to substantiate the crystallization of liabilities in the year under consideration and further directed AO to examine the exact nature of liabilities with regards to prior period expenses. AO disallowed the claim after holding that the appellant was not able to substantiate the claim. The appellant before me has argued that the expenses related to previous year were constantly debited by the appellant to prior period expenses account and in many cases the bills were received by the company after the close of accounting yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impact over a period of time due to some expenditure being carried over from year to year. In fact this commercial aspect has been recognized and approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Adani (supra) by holding that under such circumstances, no disallowance of prior period expenditure which is otherwise of revenue in nature, is called for. In the present case, since all prior period expenditure are revenue in nature, respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the disallowance of prior period expenditure is directed to be deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1 & 2 are allowed." 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasoned finding of the ld.CIT(A) we do not see any force in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. 6. Ground No.2 in the Revenue's appeal and ground nos.1 and 2 in the assessee's appeal are being taken up together for adjudication. The sole issue involved is, what amount is required to be worked out for making disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has shown dividend income of Rs. 4.29 crores which is claimed as exempt. In the original assessment order, the ld.AO has made a disallowance of Rs. 3,25,92,000/- . The issue travelled upto the Tribunal, and thereafter it was remitted back to the AO. In the fresh assessment order, the ld.AO has worked out the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee issues involved in the dispute first being the applicability of Rule 80 mechanically, second, being the quantum of disallowance and third being 14A adjustment to the book profit calculated u/s 115JB of the Act. With regards to the first issue, in my opinion the AO has correctly applied Rule 8D of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the appellant has not disallowed anything u/s 14A. From the perusal of the balance sheet it can be seen that appellant had interest free funds of Rs. 433.12 crores as against investments of Rs. 9.14 crores. As held by the series of decisions of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Suzlon (supra) and Torrent (supra) and other, I am inclined to agree with the arguments of the appellant that it possessed sufficien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ponents are administrative expenses. The ld.AO has worked out administrative expenses under Rule 8D at Rs. 4,70,510/-. According to the assessee it should be Rs. 3,00,000/-. The ld.CIT(A) has rejected this contention of the assessee, and upheld the working made by the AO. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO ought to have taken into consideration the average investment which has yielded exempt income in this year. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments P.Ltd., 165 ITD 27 (SB). 10. On due consideration of the above facts, in principle we hold that administrative expenses are required to be calcula....