TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment order dated 09.02.2016 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") for AY 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") , read as under:- "The Appellants appeals against the impugned order 30.05.2017 (received by it on 23.06.2017) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Act (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (the CIT(A)), under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act), on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to any others: 1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t with respect to earning of an exempt income. The AO had made disallowance u/s. 14Aof the 1961 Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, as under:- Thus, the AO made total disallowance of Rs. 10,96,588/- (Rs. 11,31,746/- - 35,158/-) which was added back to the income of the assessee being expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an exempt income , vide assessment order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. The issue travelled to Ld. CIT(A) at the behest of the assessee who was pleased to delete the addition of Rs. 9,49,286/- as was made by the AO u/s. 14A of the 1961 Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the 1962 Rules , vide appellate order dated 30.05.2017. It is not brought to our notice both by learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 1,92,535 under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO thus made a disallowance of Rs. 10,62,713/- after giving credit of Rs. 32,341/- offered by the assessee. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,60,194/- [Rs. 1,92,535/- disallowed by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii) minus Rs. 32,341/- offered by the assessee]. 7. We find that the ITAT 'C' Bench, Mumbai in assessee's own case for the AY 2008-09 (ITA No. 4080/Mum/2012) has upheld similar disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Tribunal held: "However, coming to the disallowance of other direct or indirect expenditure, the assessee has computed the disallowance at Rs. 24,304/- by allocating the salary paid to junio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss account, the assessee has credited Rs. 22,74,670/- as dividend income and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(34) in the computation of income. The assessee has offered Rs. 32,341/- as disallowance u/s 14A in respect of the exempt income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance of Rs. 9,02,519/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 1,92,535 under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO thus made a disallowance of Rs. 10,62,713/- after giving credit of Rs. 32,341/- offered by the assessee. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,60,194/- [Rs. 1,92,535/- disallowed by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii) minus Rs. 32,341/- offered by the assessee]. 7. We find that the ITAT 'C' Bench, Mumbai in assessee's o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of Section 14A cannot be invoked lacks merit in view of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited(supra). We order accordingly. 8. The next issue concerns itself to a depreciation which was not claimed by the assessee in earlier assessment years prior to AY 2002-03 as the assessee opted not to claim depreciation for those years for its three divisions namely Division I, II and III of Factory 1 & 2. The AO revised written down value of the assets by taking into account depreciation as were allowable under the 1961 Act for years prior to AY 2002-03 albeit the same was not claimed by the assessee in return of income filed with the Revenue for all those years. This led to the additions to the tune....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and income for all those years. We have observed that the issue is decided by tribunal against the assessee for immediately preceding year in ITA no. 4121/mum/2016, vide order dated 31st May, 2018 for AY 2012-13, by holding as under:- " This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai *in short 'CIT(A)'+ and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the 'Act'). 2. The grounds of appeals filed by the assessee read as under: 1. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the Appellant had disclaimed deduction by way of depreciation under section 32(1) of the Act in the earlier years....