Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2023 (11) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt/revenue in the instant appeal. 2. For convenience, the relevant parts of the order dated 23.08.2023 are set forth hereafter: "1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue has assailed the order dated 14.05.2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "Tribunal"]. 3. The appellant/revenue has proposed the following questions of law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in restricting the addition on disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, to Rs. 78,037/- as against the addition made by the AO of Rs. 7,94,53,077/-, by ignoring the fact that under R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the failure of the AO to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether the suo motu disallowance made by the petitioner was correct, the addition in issue, by way of deletion of disallowance could not have been made because the exempt income earned by the respondent/assessee was only Rs. 78,037/-. 10. This aspect is covered by the following judgments rendered by various Courts: (a) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax~6, New Delhi vs. Mcdonald's India Pvt. Ltd, 2018:DHC:6836-DB. (b) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax IV (2015) 378 ITR33 (Delhi). (c) Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Chennai vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. (2017) taxman 55 (Madras). 11. We may note that a Special Leave Pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee. On careful perusal of various articles of agreement of sale of the above referred debts we are of the view that the sale of debts has not fully materialized in the relevant year as it is the transition phase of sale of debts and that is why the assessee has been appointed as debt recover [sic...recovery] agent and the hypothecated assets against which the loan given by the assessee were in the process of transfer to STFCL. Further, such sales of approximately 24,000 debts take time to get transferred in totality. Further, such sale of actionable claim is out of the purview of the Sales [sic...The Sale] of Goods Act. Due to indemnity and condition to recover the enhance [sic...enhanced] loss over and above 20% of debts from the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amount was charged for these services and as to how the same is appearing in the books of accounts." [Emphasis is ours] 7. What gives further credence to this aspect is the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal, albeit, after a detailed analysis of the agreement executed between the respondent/assessee and Shriram, which is encapsulated in paragraph 38 of the impugned order: "38. After considering the facts in totality, in the light of the sale agreement and various relevant clauses discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that transaction has taken place during the year under consideration and loss has crystallized during the year under consideration and the assessee is entitled for claim of loss of R....