9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 58 - AT - Income TaxDeduction claimed by the assessee u/s 10AA - additional income offered on account of suomoto adjustment and transfer pricing provisions - Held that - In instant case the claim made by the assessee is not a fresh claim it is only an alternate claim and the same is correct claim made by the assessee. The fact that the assessee has carried on the business from the SEZ unit was not disputed by the AO. AO also did not dispute the fact that the profit was related to the new unit established in the VSEZ. The assessee has filed audit report which is placed according to which the entire profit and the turnover was related to the unit located in VSEZ Rushikonda. Hence we are of the considered view that merely because of the technical reasons the justice should not suffer. In the subsequent assessment years on the same facts the AO has allowed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition misdirecting himself that the assessee has made the opposite claim. In fact there was no opposite claim made by the assessee and it was only an alternate claim. Similar issue of alternate claim u/s 10A has come up before the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in the case of Approva Systems (P) Ltd. (2018 (3) TMI 1031 - ITAT PUNE) and the coordinate bench held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 10A on additional income offered on account of suomoto adjustment and transfer pricing provisions. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A - Held that - There is no case for disallowance under Rule 8D of IT Rules. The fact that there was no dividend income earned by the assessee is not in dispute. No disallowance is called for in the absence of exempt income. We hold that in the absence of the exempt income there is no case for making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction Claim under Section 10AA vs. Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction Claim under Section 10AA vs. Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee filed a return of income declaring Nil income and claimed a deduction under Section 10B amounting to Rs. 74,28,858/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the deduction under Section 10B is not allowable for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the proviso to Section 10B(1). Upon receiving a notice, the assessee explained that the deduction was mistakenly claimed under Section 10B instead of Section 10AA, as the business operations had shifted to a new SEZ unit in Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam. The assessee submitted relevant documents and the audit report in Form No. 56G to support the claim under Section 10AA. However, the AO rejected the claim due to the non-filing of Form No. 56F with the return of income and disallowed the deduction under Section 10B. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the business activity was carried out from a different unit than the one for which the Section 10B deduction was claimed, and hence, the alternative claim under Section 10AA was not permissible. Upon appeal, it was argued that the mistake was bona fide and that the correct deduction should be under Section 10AA. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed shifted operations to the SEZ unit and that the entire profit was related to this new unit. The Tribunal found the mistake to be genuine and held that the assessee is permitted to file the audit report during the assessment proceedings, referencing the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Panama Chemicals Work, which allowed for the filing of audit reports during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., which permits the CIT(A) to entertain fresh claims. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the deduction under Section 10AA, considering it a correct and alternate claim. 2. Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The AO disallowed Rs. 30,78,288/- under Section 14A, applying Rule 8D, due to investments made by the assessee in various companies and the interest expenses claimed on borrowings. The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that no exempt income was earned during the year, and thus, disallowance under Section 14A should not apply. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition. Upon appeal, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the assessment year. Referring to similar cases, including Vasanta Traders vs. ITO and Redington (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of exempt income, there is no basis for disallowance under Section 14A and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on both grounds. The deduction under Section 10AA was permitted as an alternate claim, and the disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed due to the absence of exempt income. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering genuine mistakes and the relevance of audit reports filed during assessment proceedings.
|
