TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals)-38, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as First Appellate Authority in short Ld. "FAA") in appeal No. 05/201617 before it against the order dated 31.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") by the ld. AO, DCIT, Circ-13(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. The brief facts of the case as can be picked form record are that assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking formed with the sole object of reviving sick textile mills mainly to safeguard the interest of labourers employed by these Mills and having b/d unabsorbed losses of Rs 8,416.91 Crores during the current A.Y. 2011-12. Further assessee is also not liable to pay taxes as per BIFR mandate. Assessee filed its origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lutely accepted the working of assessee & deleted additions based on the similar working of Ld. A.O. Assessee claims it was never provided any opportunity or confronted with the difference in valuation of property of Rs 11,13,426/- wrt to valuation report. It is alleged that the Ld. A.O. made additions against fair play without recourse to natural justice solely with the thirst of revenue. Assessee made detailed submissions regarding the nature of transfer expenses of Rs 77,59,383/- being spent on E-action, which were ignored by A.O. It is alleged that he further tried to substantiate his disallowance by referring to TDS provisions in general. Assessee also made detailed submissions pertaining to non disallowance of prior period expenses Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....making disallowance of an amount of Rs.9,06,897/-, also computed under Rule 8D. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the interest expenditure having direct nexus with the taxable income, no disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) can be made. (ii) Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative the computation under Rule 8D made by AO is wrong. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.11,13,426/- made by AO on account of difference in cost of property sold. (ii) That the addition has been confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee on the basis of its earlier order in the assessee"s own case despite the fact the principle of res-judicata is not applicable to Income Tax Proceedings as each assessment year is a separate year." 5. Heard and perused the record. Ground-wise determination of the issues in respective appeals is as below. 6. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 in Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 4787/Del/2019. It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that in spite of Assessee making a suo moto disallowances of Rs. 9,05,897/- without recording any satisfaction for the reasons for disallowance of this amount the Ld. AO enhanced the same. Reliance was placed on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rage investment and if this amount is reduced from the calculation by the AO there is no difference in the suo moto disallowance and the disallowances arrived by the ld AO. 7. The ld DR further supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. 8. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it can be observed that the at page No. 83 to 91, the Assessee"s reply dated 18.03.2014 submitted before the Ld. AO is available where in details of calculation of suo moto disallowance is shown. There is force in the contention of the ld counsel that only those investment are required to be considered for the purpose of the calculation under Rule 8D, which had yielded the exempt income. In the present case the dividend income is rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was submitted that the ld CIT(A) was provided the valuation report of the land 313 measuring sq mt. and remand report was called from the Assessee but inspite of admitting it in evidence the ld CIT(A) ignored the same. 11. The ld DR further defended the findings of the tax authorities below. 12. In regard to this ground the bench is of considered opinion that at para 5.2 the ld CIT(A) mentioned the fact of admission of the additional evidence of the Assessee u/s 250(4) of the Act and thereafter remand report from the AO was called. Once the ld CIT(A) has admitted the valuation report in regard 313 sq mts. of land, then it was not justified to uphold addition in regard 313 sq mts of land on basis that Assessee had failed to furnish the....