TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. ITA 308/2022 1. Present income tax appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 04th December, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2124/Del/2015 and ITA No. 2810/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2010-11. 2. The assessee is a subsidiary of the Punjab National Bank and is engaged in the business of retail lending as well as long term finance for construction of homes. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by not considering the total receipt of business for the purpose of working out the proportion to be used in calcu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said deduction made by the assessee. The learned counsel for the appellant admits that no appeal has been filed challenging the said order in assessee's own case for the said AYs, except the order impugned in the present proceedings. The Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) has held that Courts must promote the interest of certainty in tax litigation. According to the Apex Court, there is a significant value which one must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. It further held that individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty and to detract from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the objectand purpose of Section 14A, conclusively held that in cases where shares are held by assessee as stock-in-trade, the dividend earned on the said shares is incidental and would not attract the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. In this regard, the following paragraphs of the judgment are apposite:- "49. We note from the facts in State Bank of Patiala case that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8-D of the Rules and holding that Section 14-A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT(A) disallowed the entire deductio....