TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned appeals and pertain to same assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 2712/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2020-21](Assessee) 3. The solitary grievance raised by the assessee reads as under: "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not allowing the set off of the carry forward business losses of Rs. 47,15,03,726/-. Such action being arbitrary, fallacious and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief." 4. In addition to the above, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which read as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer be directed to allow the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness loss, there is a confusion as to the fact of its disallowance or allowance in the subsequent assessment years which are not clear either from the AO's or the CIT(A)'s order. In view of the same, we deem it fit to restore the said issue to the file of the AO to examine whether the same has been allowed in AY 2018-19 or the subsequent years. In the event that the business loss is allowed in subsequent years, no action is required. In the event, the said business loss is not allowed, the assessee shall get the benefit of said business loss in the impugned year. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. With respect to the additional grounds raised, in respect to bad debts and applicability of section 115JB, we find that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he property) since the income from the sale of the property does not belong to the assessee i.e., Bank?" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs. 53,11,30,453/- made by the AO in respect to Carried forward of Long Term Capital Loss, without appreciating the facts that AO is made disallowance after discussing the facts in assessment order. (4) The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend, modify, add of forego, alter or amend any ground(s) of appeal raised above at the time of hearing of this appeal." 12. At the very outset, both the rival representatives concurred that the issue of disallowance u/s 14A is a recurri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Investment vs. CIT (supra), reproduced hereinabove are squarely applicable to facts of present case. Respectfully following the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment vs. CIT (supra), we allow this ground raised by assessee and hold that these were not investments made by assessee in order to fall within the ambit of Rule 8D (iii) of Income tax Rules 1962". Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Dank of India) vide its order dated 20.05.2022 held that provision of section 14A is not applicable where securities are held as stock in trade. As such this issue also Stands covered by the said decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. Copy of said order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers includes interest and other charges recoverable from the borrowers. Such interest and other charges on recovery are being offered to the income tax by the Bank. TDS deducted against section 194A on sale of such properties of defaulting borrowers for recovery of dues has been claimed by the Bank as income there against on account of interest and other charges has been offered for tax. The Learned AO misunderstood such transaction and concluded that Bank is not entitled to claim TDS w/s 194A as the income there against has not been offered to tax which is incorrect. In respect of TDS of Rs 4.42 Crore towards sale of property of defaulting borrower, we submit that Bank has accounted for interest income and other income in its book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ras 4.6.1 to 4.6.3 has held as under: "4.6.1 ******In the assessment order for AY 2019-20, Long Term Capital Loss of Rs 47,67,74,331/- was considered and allowed. In respect of brought forward Long Term Capital Loss of AY 2016-17 and AY 2018 19, there has been no finding in the assessment order for AY 2019-20 for disallowing brought forward Long Term Capital Loss of said AY 2016-17 and AY 2018-19. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that such Long-Term Capital Loss was disallowed in AY 2019-20 Further your good self may refer the Assessment Order for AY 2016-17 and AY 2018-19. where the said loss was allowed during the scrutiny assessment of AY 2016-17 and AY 2018-19. In view of above the Bank is eligible for carry forward o....