TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed its return of income originally on 30th October 2007, declaring total income of Rs. 1284,54,70,964 under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 2188,13,41,552, under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30th March 2009, declaring income of Rs. 1287,08,04,652, under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 2188,13,41,552, under section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had earned dividend income of Rs. 198,90,32,804, and claimed it as exempt from tax under section 10(34) of the Act. Similarly, it had earned interest income of Rs. 2,43,50,578, and claimed it as exempt under section 10(35) of the Act. From the annual report of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that it had incurred interest expenditure of Rs. 313.07 lakh. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why disallowance of expenditure for earning exempt income should not be made under section 14A r/w rule 8D. Through letter dated 27th November 2009, though, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent with the aforesaid view of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case, as referred to above, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act @ 1% of the exempt income earned during the previous year. This ground is partly allowed." 7. Facts being identical, following the consistent view of the Tribunal on the disputed issue, as referred to above, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to 1% of the exempt income earned during the year. This ground is partly allowed. 8. In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged disallowance of deduction claimed on account of pro-rata amount of lease hold land. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while verifying the computation income noticed that in Note no.4, the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 41,13,103, on account of amortization of upfront payment made for lease hold land. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not claimed this deduction either in the original return of income nor in the revised return of income. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee's claim of deduction. Learned DRP also upheld the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate authorities. Therefore, assessee's claim of deduction should have been examined on merit by learned DRP instead of rejecting it on technical ground. Be that as it may, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh assessee's claim of deduction. While doing so, the Assessing Officer should also take note of assessee's contention that similar deduction claimed by the assessee in preceding assessment year was allowed. Further, the Assessing Officer is also directed to decide the issue on merit keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sun Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. (supra) and that of the Tribunal in Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and any other decision which may be cited by the assessee. With the aforesaid observations, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of assessee's claim for excluding write-back of provisions for doubtful debts / advances. 15. Brief facts are, in the course of assessment proceedings the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue on the basis of Hon'ble High Court's decision. 18. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. 19. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. As could be seen, in the computation of total income the assessee had claimed that, though, as per the books of account the provision for doubtful debts / advances relating to assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, was reversed to the extent of Rs. 7,17,70,032, however, the assessee has wrongly offered an amount of Rs. 11,03,04,467, as income on account of such reversal. However, the Assessing Officer had rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee merely because such claim was not made in the return of income. In our view, the claim of the assessee, at least, should have been considered by learned DRP on merit, keeping in view the settled legal principle referred to earlier, rather than rejecting it on technical ground. Since assessee's claim was not considered on merits either by the Assessing Officer or by learned DRP and was rejected on technical ground, we restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for examining assessee's cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer for de novo adjudication after considering the submissions of the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer must decide the issue on merit keeping in view the decisions to be cited by the assessee. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 26. In ground no.6, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 35,76,072, on account of transfer pricing adjustment made to the interest on loan to the AE. 27. Brief facts are, in the course of transfer pricing proceedings the Transfer Pricing Officer noticing that the assessee had advanced loan to its AEs without charging any interest proceeded to determine the arm's length price of interest chargeable on such loans @ 14% per annum. This resulted in an adjustment of Rs. 4,44,68,152, which was added back to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. While considering assessee's objection on the issue, learned DRP directed to compute the arm's length price of the interest at LIBOR plus 200 basis points, which reduced the addition to Rs. 35,76,072. 28. The learned Authorised Representati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised the issue of short TDS credit. 33. Having considered rival submissions, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow actual credit for TDS after verifying assessee's claim. 34. In ground no.8, the assessee has challenge levy of interest under section 234C of the Act. 35. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted that interest under section 234C of the Act can be charged only on the returned income and not on the assessed income. In this context, he has relied upon the following decisions:- i) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. v/s ITO, [2009] 27 SOT 58 (Mum.) (URO); ii) Wipro Information Technology Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2004] 88 TTJ 778 (Bang.); iii) CIT v/s Smt. Premlata Jalani, [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Raj.); iv) Mrs. Prabha Lal v/s CIT, [2004] 269 ITR 212 (Patna). 36. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order. 37. Having considered rival submissions and examined the provisions of section 234C of the Act in the light of the decisions cited before us, we are of the view that interest under section 234C of the Act has to be charged on the income returned by the assessee and not on the assessed income. According....