TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 116,76,68,142/- under section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, AO passed assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 156,39,12,276/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 119,55,15,733/- under section 115JB (2)of the Act, inter alia making addition on account of additional disallowance of Rs. 2,58,76,501/- u/s 14A of the Act. Further, the assessee filed revised statement of income claiming long term capital loss on sale of shares on the basis of the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08. AO rejected the claim of assessee holding that as per the settled law, assessee can claim deduction by filing revised return and not by filing revised statement. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No. 4151/MUM/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds: Ground I:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hallenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) by filing cross appeal. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Ld. DR submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the findings of the AO may be restored. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the rival contention of the parties. Vide ground No 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in affirming the method followed the AO for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) after excluding investment in growth schemes of Mutual Funds, which are not capable of generating any exempt income. In our considered view, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court and the various High Courts. Hence, we are of the considered view that the authorities below have rightly invoked Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules for determining the disallowance. 7. So far as ground No 3 is concerned, the assessee has raised this ground without prejudice to ground No 1and 2 discussed above. According to the Ld. counsel, the average ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion which yielded exempt income during the year. The relevant para of the findings of the Tribunal reads as under: "11.16 Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year." 10. Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not in accordance with the decision of the special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) of the Act in accordance with the decision of the special Bench discussed above after taking the average investment of only those investments which yielded the exempt income during the year. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 4052/MUM/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stments P. Ltd. 82 taxmann. Com 415 has held that disallowance computed u/s 14A cannot be added to the book profit. 5. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the parties. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal referred above. Since, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the decision of the Special Bench, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. 6. Vide Ground No. 3, the revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in allowing loss claim on sale of Mutual Funds and equity shares on the basis of revised statements. The Ld. DR submitted that since the assessee filed revised statement of income pursuant to the decision of the "D" Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2007- 08 allowing the long term capital loss on sale of shares, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee. ....