TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-I/LTU/ACIT-LTU/24/2013-14 dated 29/03/2016 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 25/03/2013 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). ITA NO.2603/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) This appeal in ITA No.2603/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2012-13 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-I/LTU/DCIT-LTU/15/2015-16 dated 02/12/2016 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 10/03/2015 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.4078/Mum/2016 (A.Y.2010-11) 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act read with Rule 8D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,39,22,376/- as deduction in the return of income, he restricted the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 3,39,22,376/-. In effect apart from voluntarily disallowance of various expenses made by the assessee in the return of income, the ld. AO disallowed the remaining expenses of Rs. 3,39,22,376/- u/s.14A of the Act. By this process, no expenditure was allowed as deduction by the ld. AO for the purpose of earning taxable income. The ld. AO proceeded to make disallowance of the said expenditure u/s.14A both under normal provisions of the Act as well as in the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.2. At the outset, we find that there was absolutely no satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO in his assessment order as to how the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the correctness of the accounts of the assessee. Such satisfaction is mandated to be recorded in terms of Section 14A(2) read with rule 8D(1) of the Rules. Non-recording of such mandatory satisfaction on an objective basis with cogent reasons would make the entire addition illegal. Reliance in this r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under consideration. The ld. AR pointed out that at the time of making provision for investments, the same were duly disallowed by the assessee in the return of income. He argued that since the investments made by the assessee could not be recovered, the assessee company chose to write off the same in its books of accounts and accordingly, claimed the same as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act as admittedly the assessee company is engaged in the business of financing and being the investment company, the said investments were made by the assessee in the ordinary course of its business which had become bad and accordingly, the assessee was forced to write off the same and claim as deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. We find considerable force in this argument of the ld. AR and also considering the fact that the debenture interest income earned by the assessee in the earlier years had been duly offered to tax under the head 'income from business' and assessed as such, we hold that the loss by way of write off of investments which is arising in the ordinary course of business of money lending becomes allowable deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... challenging the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act. In view of identical facts with that of A.Y.2010-11 on this issue, which is not disputed by the revenue before us, the decision rendered by us for A.Y.2010-11 would apply with equal force for A.Y.2011-12 also except with variance in figures. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1-16 raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. The assessee had raised additional ground challenging the disallowance of Rs. 1,91,883/- being write off in respect of proportionate premium paid on lease hold land. This additional ground was stated to be not pressed by the ld. AR at the time of hearing and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed as unadmitted and not pressed. 14. We find that assessee had raised yet another additional ground vide letter dated 04/10/2018 seeking deduction for education cess on income tax paid during the year. 15. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that this additional ground raised by the assessee is purely a legal issue and does not involve verification of any facts and hence, we deem it fit to admit the same and take up for adjudication. We find that this issue is no lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 1,91,827/- which has been returned by the assessee. When this ground was raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) in para 6 of his order had merely dismissed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same does not arise from the order of the ld. AO. Admittedly, assessee had indeed disclosed deemed short term capital loss of Rs. 1,91,827/- in the return of income. It is the duty of the ld. AO to look into the same and check the eligibility of set off of the same with other short term capital gains. This has admittedly not been done by the ld. AO in the instant case. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication of the said issue raised in ground Nos. 10 & 11 of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 10 & 11 are allowed for statistical purposes. 21. The assessee had raised another additional ground seeking revision of dividend distribution tax paid u/s. 115O of the Act in respect of dividend paid to non-resident shareholders to the extent of such tax exceeds the rates prescribed under the relevant tax treaties. This additional ground was stated to be not pressed by the ld....