TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 1241/Ahd/2024 for AY 2017-18 (by Assessee) 3. The assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal :- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 24,00,000/- under section 14A of the Income Tax Act ('Act') read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules ('Rules) as expenditure incurred to earn exempt income 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had sufficient own funds. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the payment of Dividend Distribution Tax ('DDT'), on the dividend declared to the Appellant's non-resident shareholders, at the rate prescribed under section 115-0 of the Act4, instead of payment of DDT at the rate prescribed in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius. 4. The Assessing Officer be directed to grant the refund of excess DDT paid adopting the rate of tax as prescribed under section 115-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal, i.e. assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 24,00,000/- and the Revenue is against deletion of disallowance of 1,12,86,250/- u/s 14A of the Act. 6.2 We have heard both the parties on this issue and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) rightly restricted the disallowance to Rs. 24,00,000/- by observing as under:- 4.1. In the facts of the case, I find that the assessee had earned Exempt Dividend Income u/s. 10(35) of the Act from mutual funds, for a sum of Rs. 2,01,88,967/-. The AO in the assessment order found that there was a fresh investment of Rs.70,00,00,000/- in the shares of Container Rail Road Services Pvt. Ltd. and the total investment in mutual fund was made for Rs. 53,16,20,000/-. The AO further held that, as per the Tax Audit Report, the assessee has not suo moto disallowed any expenditure on account of interest or on account of corresponding administrative expenditure towards earning of the exempt dividend income of Rs. 2.02 Cr. Relying on the Circular of the CBDT, bearing No. 5 of 2014, dated 11/02/2014, the AO held that expenses which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14A shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case, even if no exempt income has accrued or arisen or has not been received during the Previous Year but expenditure has been incurred during the said Previous Year, in relation to such income. 4.6. In light of the above provisions, I find that the disallowance proposed by the Assessing Officer to be correct on principle. However, in terms of the Rule of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad, B-Bench, in assessee's own case, the quantum of disallowance should not include the sum of investment held in shares of other companies from where no dividend income has been earned. Therefore, the 1 per cent of annual average of monthly averages of investment held in mutual funds may be considered for the disallowance and therefore, the disallowance is restricted to 1 per cent of Rs. 24,00,00,000/- (the book value of investments in mutual funds) which is Rs. 24,00,000/-. Therefore, assessee gets relief for Rs. 88,86,250/- and the disallowance of Rs. 24,00,000/- is sustained. The ground is, therefore, partly allowed." 6.3 We, therefore, find no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 1% of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in Mundra Port area. The assessee has got the right to use and maintain services of certain infrastructural facilities as set out in the infrastructure usages agreement. The assessee has been showing this right on the asset side of the balance sheet and claimed the same as intangible asset on which the deprecation was claimed. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the various judicial pronouncements referred by the ld. counsel. Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 1253/Ahd/ 2016 in the case of assessee itself pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 while adjudicating the order passed u/s. 263 by the Pr. CIT for disallowing the claim of depreciation on the similar issue has held that claim of the assessee for depreciation on infrastructural facility existed since 2004-05 should not be disturbed after referring a number of judicial pronouncements. In the case of ACIT vs. S.K. Patel Family Trust 33 taxman.com 678, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that wherein deprecation on certain asset had been allowed in earlier years could not be disallowed merely on the ground that such assets were not put to use during the year under consideration. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee by the High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. A.L. Logistic Pvt. Ltd. [374 ITR 601] and CIT -Vs- Chettinad Lignite Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. in TCA No.741,1266 of 2009 and 162 of 2015 dated 06-03-2019 upholding the decision of Hyderabad ITAT in the case of Ocean Sparkle Limited wherein it was held that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. Per contra Ld CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the AO and requested to up hold the addition. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. Ld CIT[A] considered the issue in detail including the SubConcession Agreement entered between the parties and held that the Port was developed by Adani Port Special Economic Zone and it was handed over to the assessee company to Operate and Maintain the Container Terminal as per Clause (G) & (H) of the Agreement. The Assessing Officer has denied the claim of without considering the proviso of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Sub Concession Agreement was in continuation and part of Concession Agreement between GMB and APSEZ, and therefore, in view of decision of Madras High Court in the case of ....