2025 (6) TMI 1710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The assessee, vide ground nos. 1 to 3, has challenged the impugned order sustain the disallowance of Rs. 4,35,00,000/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Ground Nos. 4 to 8 are general; hence, these grounds do not require specific adjudication and thus, stand dismissed. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant assessee, engaged in the business of designing and technical consultancy services to various infrastructural projects, filed its Income Tax Act (ITR) of the relevant year on 26.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 7,43,45,940/- under normal provision and income of Rs. 8,61,39,649/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 115JB of the Act. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 1484/Del/2023. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 75/2018 order dated 23.01.2018 (Jaypee Ventures Pvt. Ltd. stands amalgamated with the assessee company) to submit that the issue in dispute in the present case also got squarely covered by this decision. Further, it was contended that the AO had not given any reasoning for not accepting the assessee's suo-moto working of disallowance of Rs. 26,06,419/- under section 14A of the Act. Further, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) argued the case vehemently and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the AO has not given any reasoning for rejecting the assessee's suo-moto working of disallowance of Rs. 26,06,419/- under section 14A of the Act. Further, it was contended that the AO could not enhance the disallowance under section 14A of the Act without recording any reason for rejecting the assessee's working of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. We find that this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA no. 1484/Del/2023 (supra) ....