TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filed after a delay of 59 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the submission made by the A.R. and the judicial pronouncement that a case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned 03. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring NIL income. Carried forward loss of Rs. 1,56,15,948/- was shown in the return. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The assessee Company is engaged in business of Real Estate and Jute Products. During the year, Assessee had sold land and building. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance Act 2018 clearly mentions that the amendment, would be effective from 01.04.2019. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decisions of Kolkata, ITAT which held the insertion of the 3rd proviso to section 50C of the IT Act to be a declaratory, curative and procedural amendment in nature when Explanatory Notes to Finance Act 2018 clearly mentions that the amendment would be effective from 01.04.2019. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that appellant has not earned any exempt income on its investments in the current year hence, disallowance u/s 14A is not sustainable whereas explanation to section 14A held that the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aluation of the property. The ld. AR further drawn the attention of this court that in respect of the assessment of other co-owners of the captioned immovable property reference were made to the DVO by determining the fair value of the property. Further, the valuation report of the DVO providing valuation of the captioned property was received in respect of co-owner, M/s Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. and as per the DVO valuation of the property under consideration was arrived at Rs.12,07,89,700/-. The ld. AR submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the ld. CIT (A) discussed the valuation report of the DVO in respect of to the co-owner, M/s Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter directed the ld. AO to delete the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess than 5% of the sale consideration declared by the assessee. We have gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT (A) in its order has discussed the valuation report of one of the co-owners and thereafter passed the order in favour of the assessee. The relevant portion of the ld. CIT (A) order is essentially reproduced hereinbelow: - "3.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. A.O. did not refer the valuation to DVO. However, assessee is a co-owner with Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Valuation report of the DVO has been received after the assessment order was finalised in the case of Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. As per the valuation report, the estimated value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.1 Assessee had made investments in shares. However, assessee had not disallowed any expenses u/s 14A of the IT Act. Hence, invoking circular no. 5/2014 of CBDT, AO has applied Rule 8D and computed disallowable amount u/s 14A at Rs. 75,186/- and added the same to the total income. 4.2 Appellant has pointed out that it has not earned any exempt income on its investments in the current year. Hence, no disallowance u/s 14A should be made in view of the following decisions: 1. Supreme Court Ruling in case of PCIT v. GVK project and Technical Services Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 181 (SC) 2. Supreme Court of India in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) 1 v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2018] 95 taxmann.com....