TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act is ab initio void being bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order dated 11th March, 2016 and directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellant-company is engaged in the business of Multispecialty Hospital. The original assessment order for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 was passed by the DCIT, Ahmedabad on 11.3,2016 u/s.!43(3) of the I.T. Act. In the opening para of the aforesaid scrutiny assessment order the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s.l43(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 8th September, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the following reasons:- (i) While computing the total income, the appellant-company made a disallowance of Rs. 6,53,822 u/s.!4A read with Rule 8D whereas according to the learned Principal C1T the disallowance works out to Rs. 9,42,801. (ii) Further, the disallowance made u/s,14A while computing the income should have been added to the book profit u/s.ll5JB by virtue of Explanation- 1(f) u/s.115JB. The Assessing Officer failed to add this amount to the book profit. (iii) During the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14 the appellant-company entered into a Composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Deme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant-company. 4. The learned Principal CIT in the aforesaid notices issued u/s.263 assumed that the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings did not examine and apply his mind to the aforesaid issues and he failed to make any additions/disallowances on account of the aforesaid factors, The learned Principal CIT, therefore, opined that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and called upon the appellant-company to explain as to why appropriate order be not passed u/s.263 of the I.T. Act. 5. In response to the aforesaid notices issued by the learned Principal CIT, the appellant-company filed detailed replies dated 9* March, 2018 and 26th March, 2018. In these rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is submitted by the appellant company has already made disallowance of Rs. 6,53,882/- and same can be seen from statement of computation of income and Annexure-6 of Tax Audit Report. As we can see that Ld. A.O. has considered all aspects of aforesaid income and after thorough application of mind the A.O. has accepted the disallowance. Thus, we allow this ground of appeal. 7. The Assessing Officer has also made detailed enquiry with regard to demerger of the company and same order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court and all the stake holders were informed by way of notice by the Hon'ble High Court and same is part of paper book at page no. 88 wherein it is mentioned that assets and liability as the debit balance of Profit and Loss accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rger, the accumulated loss and the allowance for unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged company shall- (a) Where such loss or unabsorbed depreciation is directly relatable to the undertakings transferred to the resulting company, be allowed to be carried forward and set off in the hands of the resulting company; (b) Where such loss or unabsorbed depreciation is not directly relatable to the undertakings transferred to the resulting company, be apportioned between the demerged company and the resulting company in the same proportion in which the assets of the undertakings have been retained by the demerged company and transferred to the resulting company, and be allowed to be carried forward and set off in the hands of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red loan received from his brother, assessee pointed out that he was running a successful business of trading, was engaged in various commercial and noncommercial activities and he was man of standing and means - Assessing Officer accepted explanation of assessee and did not make any addition in respect of those amounts -Whether once Assessing Officer carried out detailed inquiries, it was not open for Commissioner to reopen issues on mere apprehension and surmises - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal was justified in setting aside impugned revisional order - Held, yes [Para 20] [In favour of assessee] 12. In the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 Division Bench of Gujarat High Court referring to the judgment of Su....