9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 30 - AT - Income TaxAddition made u/s 14A - HELD THAT - Issue covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI . The Ld. CIT(A) has applied this decision and hence we uphold the same. Accrual of income - Addition on account of rental income - HELD THAT - This issue is no more res integra as the Tribunal in the assessee s own case in the earlier assessment years 2016 (1) TMI 169 - ITAT KOLKATA for A.Y. 2007-08 had held that the action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands of the assessee, which never accrued and hence cannot he brought to tax. Quantification of disallowance u/s 14A - assessee submitted that application of Rule 8D by the AO was bad in law for the reason that proper satisfaction was not recorded by the AO - HELD THAT - On a query from the bench, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he would have no objection, if the issue is set aside to the file of the AO for de novo exercise on the quantification of the disallowance by applying the decision of the CIT(A) in an appeal for the A.Y. 2015-16 order dated 22nd February, 2019, for the reason that a remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) based the disallowance on the remand report. The ld. departmental representative did not have any objection for this proposal of the learned counsel for the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law with the direction to consider and apply the decision of the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2015-16. CIT(A) in this order, after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer had restricted the disallowance to ₹ 62.67 lacs. In view of the above discussion all these grounds of appeal are set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Order is 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. For coming to such a conclusion, we rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI
Issues Involved:
- Cross appeals against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. - Common issues pertaining to the same assessee heard together and disposed of in a common order. - Department appeal in ITA No. 1626/Kol/2018 for assessment year 2012-13. - Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1666/Kol/2018. - Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1627/Kol/2018. - Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1667/Kol/2018. Analysis: 1. *Department Appeal (ITA No. 1626/Kol/2018)*: - Ground 1 dismissed as decided in favor of revenue. - Ground 2 upheld based on Special Bench decision. - Ground 3 on rental income addition dismissed following previous Tribunal and High Court decisions. - General Ground 4 resulted in the appeal's dismissal. 2. *Assessee's Appeal (ITA No. 1666/Kol/2018)*: - All grounds related to quantification of disallowance u/s 14A. - Proper satisfaction not recorded by AO; set aside for fresh adjudication. - Disallowance confirmed by CIT(A) set aside for re-examination by AO. - Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. 3. *Revenue's Appeal (ITA No. 1627/Kol/2018)*: - Ground 1 on disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) upheld based on High Court precedent. - Ground 2 covered by Special Bench decision. - Ground 3 identical to A.Y. 2012-13; dismissed following previous decision. - Appeal dismissed. 4. *Assessee's Appeal (ITA No. 1667/Kol/2018)*: - Issue on disallowance u/s 14A set aside to AO for consistent application. - Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The judgment was pronounced after considering the impact of COVID-19 lockdown days as per a Mumbai Tribunal decision. In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of based on specific legal grounds, including quantification of disallowance u/s 14A, application of Rule 8D, and consistency with previous decisions. The orders varied between upholding, setting aside for fresh adjudication, and allowing appeals for statistical purposes, with considerations for legal precedents and extraordinary circumstances.
|
