TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n u/s. 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was filed by the assessee on 13/03/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 21,07,41,014/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2014. Later this assessment was sought to be reopened by the ld. AO u/s. 147 of the Act on the ground that assessee had not offered profit earned to tax on surrender of purchase of pension policy from Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company. The ld. AO in fact recorded the detailed reasons in support of the same before issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In the said reasons, the ld. AO stated that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns on surrender of 3 policies mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening u/s. 147 of the IT Act against the loss from surrender of other policies. The assesses had not claimed loss of Rs. 65,24,979/- as deduction from any other heads of income." 3.1. The re-assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 12/12/2018 accepting the return of income of the assessee. This assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT on the ground that assessee had debited on the ground that assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 28,86,355/- as 'investment transaction fees' which is prima facie capital in nature and ought to have been disallowed by the ld. AO while computing business income of the assessee. Since, this was not do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igure of Rs. 53,63,897/- was made by the ld. AO. This disallowance was contested by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 30/12/2016 in para 6.3.1 had categorically recorded that assessee had voluntarily disallowed security transaction tax of Rs. 9,26,543/- separately in the computation of income apart from making voluntarily disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs. 19,61,448/-. He also mentioned that assessee had not given the break-up of expenses considered for the disallowance of Rs. 19,61,448/- u/s. 14A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) on perusal of the P & L account of the assessee observed that assessee had incurred "investment transaction fees" of Rs. 28,86,355/- which was also directly attributable to inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. As per the provisions of Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 263(1) of the Act, the matter which has already been considered and decided by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be the subject matter of revision by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Even though no addition was made by the ld. AO in Section 147 assessment dated 12/12/2018 in line with order of ld. CIT(A), still in our considered opinion, there would be no prejudice that would be caused to the Revenue as the additional disallowance contemplated by the ld. CIT(A) u/s. 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs. 9,24,907/- would be made in either case by the ld. AO in the order giving effect proceedings to the ld. CIT(A). Hence, there is absolutely no prejudice that would be caused to the interest of ....