2024 (12) TMI 1595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assessee. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue does not seriously object to condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITA 196/2024 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), impugning an order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in ITA No.4722/Del/2012 (Assessee's appeal) and in ITA No.4718/Del/2012 (Revenue's appeal). 3. The Respondent (hereafter the Assessee) filed its return of income for assessment year (AY) 2008-09 declaring an income of Rs.2415,70,59,293/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the said income at Rs.3636,29,03,943/-. A tabular statem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection to remand the matter to the AO for determination of the deduction allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 7. The learned ITAT passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 partly allowing the Assessee's appeal and deleting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act to the extent the same was sustained by the learned CIT(A). Insofar as Revenue's appeal is concerned, the same was dismissed. 8. The Revenue has projected the following questions in this appeal for consideration of this court: "a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs.80,38,00,000/- made under section 14A IT Act read with rule 8D of the IT Rules without appreciating the fact that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esent appeal on the first four questions. The reasoning as set out in the order dismissing the ITA No.193/2024 may be read as part of the present order as well. 10. Insofar as fifth question is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same does not arise in the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the Assessee submits that the Assessee had made a claim under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act by filing a revised return, which was rejected on the ground that the Assessee could not have made the claim at a belated stage. The Assessee challenged the said decision before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), accepted the Assessee's claim under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and rejected the AO's reasoning that such a claim....