TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee relying on the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd. reported in 361 ITR 505 held that while computing Book Profit disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income to the tune at Rs. 35,67,13,350/- under normal provisions and Rs. 60,02,10,148/- u/s 115JB. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company was engaged in the business of investment. The assessee earned the dividend income from mutual funds in sum of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 3,49,64,447/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. In para 5 of the assessment order the Ld. AO had mentioned that the assessee company had claimed exempt income amounting to Rs. 4,28,42,975/- against which the appellant had suomoto disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,72,785/- as expenditure u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. Since the appellant had earned exempt income and according to the Ld. AO the assessee company did not maintained separate accounts for investments, therefore, he applied the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D and worked out a disallowance of Rs. 3,55,37,232/-. After giving credit of disallowance made by the appellant itself for an amount of Rs. 5,72,785/- the net disallowance made by the AO comes to Rs. 3,49,64,447/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, a written submission was filed which find place in para 5 of this order. The appellant submitted that similar type of disallowances were made in appellant's own case for assessment years 2008-09,2009-10. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. According to the appellant, the appeal of the assessee on these grounds has been decided by Hon'ble Tribunal. I have considered the submission of the appellant, the Hon'ble Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 25.07.2018 9- Upon further appeal, the ld. ClT(A) has restricted the same to Rs. 6.48 lacs on similar reasoning and by placing reliance on the stand of this Tribunal for earlier years. 10 - Facts being identical, taking the same stand, we confirm the action of Id. CIT(A). Since there is neither any legal change nor any factual change therefore, respectfully following judgement of Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for assessment year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, AD is directed to work out the disallowance a per the criteria decided by Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case in earlier years. Hence appeal is partly allowed." 5. On appraisal of the above mentioned order, we find that the claim of the assessee was allowed on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for the A.Y.2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. The details of decisions have been mentioned in the order reproduced above. There is no factual change. The issue has already been allowed by the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case. No law contrary to the law relied by the Hon'ble ITAT as well as by the CIT(A) in his order has been produced b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced its reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. Bhushan Steel Ltd.: ITA No.593/2015 wherein it upheld the decision of the Tribunal in holding that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added while computing book profits as per section 1115JB as Explanation to that section does not specifically mentions section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Review Petition filed by Revenue has been dismissed by High Court vide order dated. 03.03.2017. Respectfully, following the judgement of Hon'ble [TAT Special Bench Delhi in case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd., ITA no. 502/Del/2012 and C.O. No. 68/Del/2014, addition made by AO of 3,49,64,44,7I- while computing the book profit u/s.115J8 is deleted." 7. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd. ITA. No. 502/Del/2012 and C.O. No. 68/Del/2014. It is specifically held that the provisions u/s 14A r.w.r 8D is not applicable while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. No law contrary to the law relied by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid rule governing the pronouncement of the order. Accordingly, the order is being pronounced now after the re-opening of the offices. 6.3 Faced with similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal comprising-off of Hon'ble President and Hon'ble Vice President, in its recent decision titled as DCIT V/s JSW Limited (ITA Nos. 6264 & 6103/Mum/2018) order dated 14/05/2020 held as under: - 7. However, before we part with the matter, we must deal with one procedural issue as well. While hearing of these appeals was concluded on 7th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on 14th day of May, 2020, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also alive to the fact that rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5)The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners: - (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date for pronouncement. (c) In a case where no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown by the Maharashtra Government, and on account of strict enforcement of health advisories with a view of checking spread of Covid 19. The epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, there was unprecedented disruption of judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been such an unprecedented situation, causing disruption in the functioning of judicial machinery, that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Ho....