TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pune for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Shri Ronak Doshi, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the issues raised in appeal and cross objection are based on same identical facts and requested to take both, the appeal and cross objection together. Upon hearing, Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan, Ld. DR and with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to heard both, the appeal and cross objection together for the sake of convenience. 3. First we shall take up the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.246/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 for adjudication. ITA No.246/PUN/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 4. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised two grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the Ld. CIT(Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y accrued. He held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction in respect of provision made towards after sales costs and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 8. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and filed written submissions in its support. The contention of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was that the provisions for after sales costs is made on a consistent, scientific and systematic basis over a period years and were allowable as expenditure. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Limited reported in 314 ITR 62 and contended that the determined liability on a scientific basis could not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10 where no disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer under the head after sales costs. Thereby it clearly shows appellant Revenue has given effect of the order of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case from assessment year 1998-99 and allowed the claim of the assessee. 10. We find the latest order being passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 at Page No.60 of the paper book wherein we find similar grounds were raised by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and this Tribunal did not interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in allowing the claim of the assessee. For ready reference, relevant portion of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken by the Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai, in its own case, spanned across various assessment years, wherein it has deleted this disallowance made by the AO, and no further appeal has been filed against it, by Revenue, in High Court. It has been categorically stated that in AY 2006-07, the issue was referred back to the AO for verification, who after making the necessary verifications allowed the claim of the appellant for both the provisions. It has also been brought to my notice that same disallowance was made in AY 2008-09 and 2010-11, which was deleted by Ld. CIT(A), against which no appeal has been filed by the Revenue. It is further stated that after accepting the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2008-09, the AO has also dropped the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13. Now, we shall take up the Co No.04/PUN/2021 for the assessment year 2013-14 filed by the assessee. The only ground raised by the assessee challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A r.w.r.8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Rules‟). 14. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made investment of Rs. 12.98 Crores in Sulzer Chemtech Towerfield Services Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2009. Further, in order to acquire 100% subsidiary, the assessee made further investment Rs. 7.64 Crores during the year under consideration. The assessee requested to give his stand a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be made u/s.14A of the Act when there is no exempt income. The Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1124 of 2017 dated 27th January, 2020 on this issue has held as follows: "8. Section 14A of the Act deals with expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. As per sub- Section (1) of Section 14A, for the purpose of computing the total income, 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. In Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) Delhi High Court examined the expression "does not form part of the total income" as appearing in sub-Section (1) of Section 14A of the Ac....