TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e confirmation of disallowance of Rs.2,14,30,844/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act'). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the assessee made investment of Rs.527.42 crore in shares and mutual funds etc., which yielded exempt income of Rs.25.15 crore. No disallowance u/s.14A of the Act was offered in the return of income. On being called upon to explain the reasons, the assessee submitted that a sum of Rs.8,01,269/- was disallowable u/s.14A which was omitted to be considered in the computation of income. This amount was computed by attributing certain part of Employees' salary cost towards exempt income. The AO held that no disallowance on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus, there is no lack of satisfaction recorded by the AO. A similar disallowance was made for the assessment year 2010-11, which the assessee challenged in further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide its order dated 21-11-2019, the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 61 and 406/PUN/2015 dismissed the assessee's contention. Relevant discussion has been made on page 6 para 9 of the Tribunal order. It is further observed that similar disallowance was made in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment year 2011-12, which the assessee has accepted. Since the facts and circumstances on this issue for the year under consideration are similar to those of earlier years, respectfully following the precedent and specifically noting that the AO di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been placed at page 48 of the paper book in which relevant discussion has been made upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s point of view treating subsidy as capital receipt. We, therefore, do not countenance the view point adopted by the ld. CIT(A) in this year deviating from the earlier years for no justifiable reason. 7. The ld. CIT(A) also took alternative view by holding that Explanation 10 to section 43(1) was attracted in this case. In that view of the matter, amount ought to have been reduced from the written down value of the assets. 8. We have gone through the language of Explanation 10 to section 43(1), which gets triggered where a portion of cost of an asset has been paid directly or indirectly by the Central Government etc. in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is score. This ground is allowed. 9. Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal and Ground No.3 of the Revenue's appeal are against Aircraft expenses. The assessee incurred a sum of Rs.2,15,26,000/- as Aircraft expenses and depreciation on the same at Rs.3,44,90,818/-. Following the view taken for the preceding years, the AO made disallowance at 1/3rd of the total expenses. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance at 25% of the gross amount of expenses. Whereas the assessee is aggrieved by the sustenance of disallowance at 25%, the Revenue wants restoration of addition to 1/3rd of expenses. 10. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provision at Rs.6.81 crore. Both the sides are in appeal on their respective stands. 13. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is found that similar issue arose for consideration before the Tribunal in the earlier years. A copy of the Tribunal order for the assessment year 2011-12 has been placed on record, which shows that the assessee's claim has been accepted in entirety for the amount of provision created by it. Respectfully following the precedent, we allow the assessee's ground and dismiss that of the Revenue. 14. The last ground of the assessee's appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.89,13,799/- out of weighted deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. The AO observ....