9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1427 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT - Similar issue has already been remanded to the file of AO in the assessee s own case for AY 2008-09 2015 (11) TMI 1058 - ITAT MUMBAI AO has proceeded to compute the disallowance as per rule 8D of IT Rules without satisfying himself that the claim of the assessee was not correct by having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Hence the disallowance computed by the AO and that confirmed by CIT(A) was not in accordance with the mandate of law. We are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. Claim/deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) - HELD THAT - As in the assessee s own case for AY 2008-09 2015 (11) TMI 1058 - ITAT MUMBAI workings given by the assessee AO and Ld CIT(A) on approximate basis cannot be approved. Accordingly in our view this issue also requires reconsideration at the end of the assessing officer. Deduction on account of Bad-debts written off - HELD THAT - As in assessee s own case in AY- 2007-08 the similar issue was raised by the revenue and the same was decided by this Tribunal against the revenue as held new Explanation 2 which covers both rural and non-rural advances has been inserted under sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retrospective effect since it affects substantive rights of the assessees. Accordingly we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) - HELD THAT - As decided in own case provisions for bad and doubtful debts should be allowed under section 36(1)(viia) to the extent of provision made and available in the books of account whether made in the current previous year or in the preceding previous years as none of the lower authorities i.e. either Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue under consideration from this angel and as the entire facts are not available for us to adjudicate the issue. In the interest of substantial justice the orders of the lower authorities are to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer Applicability of provision of section 115JB - HELD THAT - Following the view taken by a coordinate Bench in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs JCIT 2001 (8) TMI 310 - ITAT MUMBAI which holds that provisions of MAT cannot be applied to electricity companies for mutually similar reason we uphold the plea of the assessee. The provisions of Sec. 115JB do not apply to the assessee and as such the AO was in error in concluding that income had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance made under section 14A 2. Restriction of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viii) 3. Bad-debts written off 4. Deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) 5. Deletion of computation of book profit under section 115JB 6. Deletion of addition under section 14A Analysis: 1. Disallowance made under section 14A: The Appellate Tribunal considered the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the confirmation of expenditure under Rule 8D. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal remanded this issue to the AO for reconsideration. 2. Restriction of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viii): The issue of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was raised by the assessee, citing a previous case where a similar issue was remanded to the AO for reconsideration. The Tribunal, in line with the previous decision, restored this issue to the AO for further examination. 3. Bad-debts written off: The revenue appealed regarding the deduction on account of bad-debts written off. The Tribunal relied on a previous Tribunal order and held in favor of the assessee, stating that the issue was covered by the previous finding and decided in favor of the assessee based on consistency principles. 4. Deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia): The Tribunal considered the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) based on arguments presented by the AR of the assessee. Referring to a decision by a coordinate bench, the Tribunal remanded this issue to the AO for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination. 5. Deletion of computation of book profit under section 115JB: The AR of the assessee argued that a similar issue was raised in a previous year, and the Tribunal, following the principle of consistency, allowed this ground in favor of the assessee. 6. Deletion of addition under section 14A: The issue of deletion of addition under section 14A was connected to another appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal had already remanded this issue to the AO for reconsideration, and hence, this ground was allowed in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed various issues raised by both the assessee and the revenue, remanding some to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and deciding in favor of the assessee based on consistency and previous rulings in certain matters. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal providing detailed reasoning for each issue considered.
|
