Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 142 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) - Method of accounting followed by assessee - HELD THAT - As decided in own case if the revenue expenditure has been incurred in a particular year and assessee claims that expenditure in that year the revenue cannot deny the expenditure and it has to be allowed; Secondly the loans are not project specific and it is undisputedly a revenue expenditure and same has to be allowed in the year it has been incurred irrespective of the fact that whether the assessee is following project completion method . Otherwise also this issue stands allowed in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee s own case right from the AYs 1993-94 to AY 2002-03. Thus respectfully following the earlier years precedence and the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Taparia Tools 2015 (3) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT we direct the AO to allow the interest claimed by assessee during the year. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D - HELD THAT - Since the assessee was having more surplus funds than the closing value of investments we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T. Rules the same is sustained. Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year - assessee before us pleaded that in view of the decision of the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI only those investments which yielded dividend income should be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance - HELD THAT - We direct the Assessing Officer to apply the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited (supra) and compute the disallowance accordingly. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT - Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI
|