TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment years, for the sake of convenience the above appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a Government Company engaged in the business of exploration, exploitation and production of Mineral Oil, Trading of Natural Gas, Generation of Power, etc. The details of Returns of Income filed, assessment completed u/s. 143(3), appeals filed before CIT(A) and thereafter reopening of assessments are as follows: A.Y. 2014-15 Date Particulars Remarks 29/11/2014 Original ROI filed (-) 24,24,28,198/- 28/12/2017 Assessment Order u/s 143(3) Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 3,57,11,383/- 28/01/2019 Appellate Order by Ld. CIT(A) Appeal dismissed confirming the disallowance made u/s 14A 23/03/2022 Show Cause Notice issued during reassessment proceedings to disallow u/s. 14A- Average value of investment @ 0.5% which is short deducted by Rs. 10,02,013/- 27/03/2022 Notice u/s. 148 Issued A.Y. 2015-16 Date Particulars Remarks 30/11/2015 Original ROI filed (-) 141,46,77,111/- 28/12/2017 Assessment Order u/s 143(3) Disall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n vs. ITO (2006) 286 ITR 618, Bombay HC and Chika Overseas (P) Ltd v ITO (2011) 131 ITD 471 (Mum) (Tribunal), re-opening cannot be made for issue which is subject matter of appeal 1.6 The appellant prays to your honour that the re-opening of the assessment made solely on a mere change of opinion, is void-ab-initio and deserves to be quashed, as such reopening is not permissible under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. ITEM NO.: II Disallowance u/s, 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs. 10,02,013/- (Rs. 3,67,13,394/- as per Assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act Less: Rs. 3,57,11,381/-already disallowed as per Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act). 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the action of the learned A.O. of disallowing Rs. 10,02,013/- towards interest expenses and increasing disallowance uls. 14A r.wr. 8D. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made since the investments were made for strategic purposes and out of own funds only, with no interest incurred for earning exempt income. The same issue is pending before the Hon'ble ITAT (ITA No. 560/AHD/2019). 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the action of the learned AO of reopening the case to increase disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act merely due to a change in opinion, despite the appellant having fully disclosed all material facts and information during the original assessment proceedings 1.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the then learned A.O. had all necessary documents and details to make an informed decision while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. There is no fresh information and it is merely a change in opinion by the learned A.O., which is not permissible u/s 147 of the Act. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in upholding the reopening of the assessment merely on the ground that the appellant did not maintain separate books of account for its investment activity. 1.4 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the non-maintenance of separate books cannot be treated as fresh information for reopening the assessment. Moreover, it cannot be a basis to allege that the appellant had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts during the original assessment proceedings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered the interest expenses while calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. while passing the assessment order us 143(3) of the Act. 2.6 The appellant prays to your honour that disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs. 25,40,345/-(Rs 6,02,80,885/- as per Assessment order u/s. 147 r.ws 1448 of the Act Less: Rs 5,77,40,540/- already disallowed as per Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act) may kindly be deleted. ITEM NO.: III Non-granting of addition in closing stock of Rs. 1,15,50,00,000/- for A.Y. 14-15 as opening stock of A.Y. 15-16 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of the learned A.O. in not allowing Rs. 1,15,90,00,000/-, being the closing stock addition for A.Y. 2014-15, as the opening stock for A.Y 2015-16, merely on the ground that the appellant had not claimed the same while filing the return u/s. 148 of the Act, relying on the decision in case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT (2006) (204 CTR SC 182]. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was allowed to treat the closing stock addition of one year as the opening stock of the subsequent year as per the order of the then learned CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, substitute or modify all or any of the grounds stated hereinabove as the facts and circumstances of the case may justify." 5.1. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.1249/Ahd/2025 (Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2015-16) "(a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of IT Act of Rs. 5,53,68,585/- for computation of Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act without appreciating that exempted income should be added to the book profit as per clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act? (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal." 6. Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.N. Soparkar appearing for the assessee submitted his arguments on three folds namely: (i) On the principle of merger wherein the regular assessment already completed which was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). Thereafter reopening on the same issue is bad in law and relied upon Jurisdictional High Court Judgment in the case of Gujarat Enviro Protection & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in (2018) 91 taxmann.com 436. (ii) The Ld. A.O. failed to record his satisfaction that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Assessee, engaged in business of solid waste management, claimed exemption under section 80-IA which was initially disallowed by Assessing Officer - But on appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed assessee's claim of deduction in its entirety - Later on, assessment was sought to be reopened firstly, on ground that post monitoring expenses under heading "Long term provisions" was not actual expenses and merely a provisions and not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1); secondly, cell utilization expenses claimed as deduction was contingent expenditure which might be or might not be incurred in future; hence, cell utilization expenditure was not allowable under section 37(1); thirdly, amount debited on account of land utilization was a sort of depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter be not open for Assessing Officer to reopen this very claim for possible disallowance of part thereof - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of assessee]" 5.2. Jurisdictional Hig....