TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Since all the appeals relate to the same assessee, the same are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA No. 1172/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 (Revenue's appeal) : 2. Ground No.1 : The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in allowing the revised computation of income has been challenged by the department. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee company filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 4,72,68,230/- on 29.09.2011. The income u/s 115JB has been stated to be Rs. 7,35,54,261/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to file the copy of income tax return, statement of computation of income and tax audit report. In response thereto by and under a letter dated 01.08.2013, the assessee replied referring a letter dated 30.12.2011 filed to the Learned JCIT, Gandhinagar Range on 02.02.2012 informing him that the return was filed on 29.09.2011 on the basis of provisional accounts. However, after the finalization of accounts on 01.12.2011 certain changes in the final audited account as c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wance is liable to be deleted. On the other hand, the Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the Learned AO. 6. Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears from the records that the Learned AO has disallowed Rs. 56,42,795/- on the ground that the appellant has revised its income without filing a revised return. On the other hand, it was the case of the assessee that the return was filed based on provisional, un-audited accounts and upon finalization of such accounts on 01.12.2011 a revised computation of income was prepared which was made known to the authorities with a request to consider the same on 30.12.2011. This is just a revised statement that too much prior to the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 10.09.2012. Thus, it is an admitted fact that appellant has revised its income on its own after finalization of accounts. We have also carefully considered the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) who has taken into consideration the entire aspect of the matter. When the Learned AO has not accepted the revised computation the disallowance and additions ought not to have been made on such revised income of the assessee; thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee indicating that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Ultimately, an amount of Rs. 45,12,220/- was disallowed. On the other hand, we find from the records that the issue has already been decided by the predecessor of the Learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005-06 with the following observation: "Besides the fact that the expenses involved are recurring in nature and do not bring into existence ant new fixed assets, as emphasized by the Authorized Representative, laying out of such expenses is a necessity to keep control on the assets: Payment of taxes of any kind, whether one time at recurring nature, never enhance the value of the asset being used in question nor brings into existence of any advantage of enduring nature, Clearly, land revenue, though levied on the land, a fixed asset for the appellant, in itself is n6t a capital expense but is only revenue expense paid out to fulfill the statutory requirement emanating out of the ownership of the land." The Learned CIT(A) following the same deleted such addition which, in our considered view is just ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on record. It appears from the records that the assessee has received dividend income of Rs. 1,60,74,728/- from shares held by it. Taking into consideration the disallowance made in the earlier year the Learned AO has applied section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rule and disallowed the impugned amount of Rs. 47,23,579/-. However, it has been pointed out by the Learned CIT(A) that most of the investment made by the assessee were not earlier years. We have also considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of PCIT-vs-Shreno Ltd. In the said matter, business funds and investment funds of the assessee were mixed up and it was not appreciated by the Learned AO in holding that the funds deployed for earning tax free income were entirely out of interest free funds and resultantly the entire interest cost was to be located on two activities leading to taxable income and thus section 14A r.w.r. 8D was invoked. The Learned Tribunal in appeal, was of the view that the Assessing Officer had recorded a specific satisfaction before resorting to disallowance applying section 14A r.w.r. 8D to this effect that disallowance offering by the assessee was inadequat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee. It is a settled principle of law that the expenditure in question is Revenue in nature and thus allowable as decided in different pronouncement including in the matter of N. G. India Invest Ltd. as relied upon by the Learned AR. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT in deleting such addition relying upon the ratio laid down as above. Thus Revenue's appeal is found to be devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. 17. Ground No.5 This issue relates to deleting addition on account of depreciation on printers and other accessories. 18. The assessee claimed depreciation at 60% on equipments other than computers. The assessee's case is this that the printer and scanner etc are integral part of the computer system and be treated as computer for the purpose of allowing higher rate of depreciation. Therefore treating the same as part of office equipment and in turn reducing the claim of depreciation is not permissible as the case made out by the assessee before the Learned AO. However, the Learned AO allowed 15% of depreciation instead of 60% as claimed by the assessee and addition of Rs. 3,86,549/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,551/-. 25. The assessee has made the payment of employee's contribution of an amount of Rs. 3,35,551/- towards Provident Fund beyond due date on certain occasions which was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee in view of the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-vs-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. In appeal, the same was confirmed in terms of section 36(1)(va). It is the case of the assessee that such payment was made within grace period of 5 days and therefore the assessee is entitled to get the relief under the Act. Reliance was made on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Amoli Organics (I) Ltd. reported in 41 taxmann.com 149 (Guj). In that view of the matter it was prayed by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee that the issue be remitted to the file of the Learned AO for verification of such contention made by the assessee and to grant relief thereof. The Learned DR, however, has failed to controvert such contention made by the representative of the assessee. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the Learned AO for verification of the same upon consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/Mum./2014 for A.Y. 2008-09. We, therefore, confirm the addition made by the authorities below and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee. 28. Ground No.3 This ground of appeal is consequential in nature hence no order need be passed. ITA No.1928/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 (Assessee's appeal): 29. Ground No.1 This ground relates to disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D to the tune of Rs. 51,61,079/- under normal provision. 30. Upon verification of the Profit and Loss account for A.Y. 2011-12, it was found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 1,71,72,097/- during the year under consideration which was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act in the statement of total income. Further that, the assessee has disallowed suo moto sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as expenses relating to the earning of such exempt income. The assessee's case is that investment on which exempt income has been earned were not made from interest bearing funds as there are no borrowings made by the company which is evident from the balance sheet. Ultimately, applying section 14A r.w.r 8D the total disallowance has been worked out to Rs. 51,61,079/- by the Learned AO, addition whereof was in tu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted to for finding out the expenditure relatable to any income which is exempt. [Para 6.2] • When the question arises as to the applicability of similar provisions in different parts of the statute, then it is not only legitimate but proper to read both the provisions in their context. If context is same, different meaning cannot be assigned. It is to be found out that what mischief was intended to be remedied by inserting a particular section. The intention of the legislature once is manifested in a particular section in the statute then said intention cannot be given a different meaning, if a similar provision has been incorporated in a different section in the statute. The intention of the Legislature must be found out by reading the statute as a whole. [Para 6.3] • Literal meaning cannot always be followed logically, because sometimes it tends to defect the obvious intention of the Legislature and results in producing a wholly unreasonable result. [Para 6.4] • Thus, the submission of Department is that when basic object and purpose of section 14A and clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is same, then it cannot be said that mere....