TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07.2023 Assessment order dated 31.12.2016 Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA No.2658/Del/2023 CIT(A)- NFAC Delhi order dated 24.07.2023 Assessment order dated 29.12.2016 -do- 3. ITA No.2659/Del/2023 -do- Assessment order dated 30.12.2019 -do- 4. ITA No.2660/Del/2023 -do- Assessment order dated 15.06.2021 -do- 5. ITA No.2661/Del/2023 -do- Assessment order dated 21.09.2022 -do- 6. ITA No.2657/Del/2023 CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi order dated 18.07.2023 Assessment order dated 31.12.2016 -do- 7. ITA No.2645/Del/2023 CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi order dated 24.07.2023 Assessment order dated 29.12.2017 -do- 8. ITA No.2646/Del/2023 -do- Assessment order dated 30.12.2019 -do- 9. ITA No.2647/Del/2023 -do- Assessment order dated 15.06.2021 -do- 10. ITA No.2648/Del/2023 -do- Assessment order dated 21.09.2022 -do- 11. ITA No.2649/Del/2023 -do- Assessment order dated 28.12.2022 -do- 2. The issues being common and being related to the same assessee from different assessment years the respective appeals of the assessee as w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 8D cannot be applied unless the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied with the correctness of suo moto disallowance carried out by the assessee. The assessee also placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 59 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) and PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. (2019) 101 taxmann.com 167 for the purposes of the computation of disallowance qua the investment which have only yielded exempt income only and Investments not yielding exempt income cannot be reckoned. The assessee thus claims that in the absence of dissatisfaction of the AO on the suo moto disallowance, the disallowance carried out by the assessee under section 14A is not justified. Further, the upholding of part disallowance by re-computing the disallowance vis-à-vis investment yielding exempt income as directed by the CIT(A) is also not justified in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the AO as contemplated under section 14A of the Act. The learned Counsel thus insists for deletion of entire disallowance carried under section 14A under challenge. 4.3 We have considered the rival submissions with rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncial statements. As noted earlier, the assessee has deployed substantial funds towards the Investments. Thus, the financial statements itself indicate existence of adequate and prima facie material to support formation of adverse 'satisfaction'. The satisfaction contemplated under section 14A, as recorded by the AO, having regard to the accounts thus cannot be discredited. It would be pertinent here to say that phraseology employed in section 14A(2) of the Act suggests that what is required to trigger section 14A among others is that AO is 'not satisfied' with the correctness of the claim of the assessee having regard to its accounts. It nowhere strictly indicates that the "satisfaction" is required to be explicitly reduced in writing. The language employed in section 14A is not akin to 'record his reasons' employed in section 148(2) of the Act. When seen in the context, such difference in phraseology in the context of different clauses of the Act would permit us to draw inference that the expression "is not satisfied" is in variance with the expression "record reasons" as a jurisdictional requirement as noted with reference to section 148(2) of the Act. Thus, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant contended that the AO has acted wrongly in giving short TDS credit of Rs. 37,32,197/- by considering TDS of Rs. 25,91,76,255/- instead of TDS claimed at Rs. 26,29,08,452/- and duly shown in Form 26AS. In this regard, the appellant further stated that the rectification application dated 16.05.2017 filed before the AO, is still pending for disposal till date. This issue has been examined and it is seen that the appellant had claimed TDS of Rs. 36,30,15,406/- in it's original ITR and revised it at Rs. 26,29,08,452/- in the revised return of income. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted copy of 26AS which shows amount paid/credited at Rs. 54,13,92,489/- and TDS collected at Rs. 35,42,32,411/- pertaining to FY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appellant didn't furnished exact party-wise details for which TDS credit was not granted. Also, the appellant didn't segregate the TDS pertaining to the present financial year 2013-14 only. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain the quantum of TDS appearing in 26AS for FY 2013-14. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to furnish the details of TDS appearing in the 26AS statement pertaining to FY 2013-14 before the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year in the Challan prepared by the assessee, the AO and the CIT(A) is not granted credit of DDT amounting to Rs. 4,90,33,460/- paid for the obligations arising qua A.Y. 2015- 16. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the credit for Challan should be directed to be granted to it as credit of the aforesaid DDT amount has not been availed in any other year. The wrong mentioning of A.Y. in DDT Challan has occurred due to bonafide clerical error of the assessee and denial of credit due to mentioning of wrong assessment year in the Challan would lead to double payment of taxes and unjust enrichment. The assessee thus sought suitable relief in the matter. 7.2 On perusal of the first appellate order, it is seen that assessee claims to have committed mistake in putting A.Y. 2016-17 instead of A.Y. 2015-16 in DDT Challan and the AO has not granted credit of DDT in A.Y. 2015-16. 7.3 In view of the fact that the credit as per the DDT Challan appears in A.Y. 2016- 17, the AO has declined to accept the credit in relation to A.Y. 2015-16. The matter requires to be looked into administratively by the Competent Authority of the Income tax Department. It is not within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) amount of disallowance with reference to only those investments which yielded exempt income. (ii) amount of exempt income claimed. 11.4 The Ground No.1 of the assessee is partly allowed. 12. Ground No.2 is relates to short credit of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) amounting to Rs. 3,70,65,230/-. 12.1 As stated, the assessee has committed a bonafide mistake in putting wrong assessment year in the Challan, the credit for which has not been availed in any year. 12.2 As noted earlier, the matter is required to be resolved administratively by the Competent Authority. It is not practicable for the Tribunal to express any view in the matter either way. The assessee is advised to take steps for correction of Challan in accordance with law and in the alternative take up the matter administratively with the Competent Authority in the Income-tax Department. 12.3 Ground No.2 is thus dismissed. 13. Ground No.3 relates to short credit of TDS to the extent of Rs. 38,42,652/-. 13.1 In consonance with the directions given for earlier years (supra), the AO may examine the grievance of the assessee in accordance with law in an expeditious manner. 13.2 The Ground No. 3 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef granted by the CIT(A) against the disallowance of ESOP compensation expenditure on the ground that such expenditure is not actual expenditure and such expenditure is not revenue in character. The learned Counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, pointed out that the issue is covered in the assessee's own case in prior years i.e. A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2013- 14 by the order of the Tribunal and thus no interference with the order of the CIT(A) is called for. 18.2 The CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in A.Y. 2014-15 as under: "4.2 Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance of Rs. 35,35,76,158/- on account of Employee Stock Option Scheme Compensation: In this ground of appeal, the appellant's main contention is that the AO has disallowed the above expenditure merely relying upon the earlier years assessment orders wherein disallowance has been made on similar grounds. On verification of the assessment order as well as rectification order, it is noticed that the AO had inadvertently made a disallowance of Rs. 19,10,00,000 vis-à-vis 19,07,072/- as charged in the Profit & Loss Account. Vide rectification order dated 18.04.2017, this mistake has been rectified by the AO and ....