TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the AY 2012-13. In view of this conclusion, we deem it not necessary to deal with the nature of expenditure. On this premise, we confirm the orders of the authorities below and also the addition. - Decided against assessee. Addition u/s 14A - contention of no exempt income - Held that:- CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein it was held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned. On this aspect it is not the case of Revenue that the assessee earned any exempt income. We, therefore, while respectfully following the decision in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Limited (supra) direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 2,84,430/- on account of invocation of Section 14A of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, according to the assessee they had written off ₹ 64,72,52,645/- as cost/expenses incurred on such project under the head other expenses (administrative expenses) as loss on Amritsar project , in the books of Shourya Towers (P) Ltd by treating the same as bad debt as well as loss arising out of an abundant project. The assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 30.09 2012 and declared the total loss of ₹ 17,30,06,103/-. However, during the 143(3) proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer opined that the loss of Amritsar Project booked for the AY 2012-13 does not belong to such assessment year and even otherwise such expenditure being compensatory in nature, amounts to capital e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses) as loss on Amritsar project written off is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld.AO in making disallowance of ₹ 2,84,430/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, more so when there is no exempt income. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttlement deed dated 26.04.2007 relevant for the AY 2008-09 and nothing new affecting or impacting these rights or liabilities happened subsequently. Even if we take the order of the Hon ble High Court as the date for crystallization of these rights and liabilities it was by way of order dated 14.07.2009 in civil revision no. 3081/2009 everything was settled, as such, by no stretch of imagination could it be pleaded by the assessee that merely because the certified copy of the High Court order was obtained at a later point of time, the cause of action for writing off of the loss arises. He submitted that the subsequent settlement pleaded by the assessee on 17.08.2012 has nothing to do with the Amritsar property, but it relates to the impleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 26.04.2007 and deals with the implementation of such deed in respect of the payment of compensation by the land acquisition collector to the assessee. In no way this compromise altered, superseded or impacted in any way the earlier settlement deed nor affected any rights or liabilities crystallized under the settlement deed dated 26.04.2007. Even if we go by the plea of the assessee in respect of High Court litigation, at the latest finality was attained by 14.07.2009 with the order of the Hon ble High Court and nothing more was required for the assessee to treat the expenditure or loss as bad debt to be written off after such date. We can, therefore, safely conclude that subsequent to the AY 2010-11 nothing new happened giving rise to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|