9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as taken godowns on lease from M/s. Sovereign Pharma Pvt. Ltd. at Daman for storage of vaccines and Indian Cost Guard has its huge base at Daman. The expenditure has been incurred towards discharge of corporate social responsibility. Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(ii) - assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- AO has no jurisdiction over the assessee since he does not have any incriminating material in his possession for granting jurisdiction to make addition u/s.14A of the Act Allowability of deduction with reference to the Wealth Tax paid by the assessee for the purpose of computing book profits u/s.115JB - Held that:- As relying on case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd. [2000 (3) TMI 170 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E] we agree with the contention of the learned authorised representative of the assessee that a provision made for wealth-tax cannot be equated to any liability towards income-tax and accordingly, cannot be disallowed while computing the book profit by invoking Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 115JA(2) of the Act. In any case, this is the case where no incriminating material was seized by the Revenue during the search action connecting to the disallowability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue and in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case vide ITA No.17/PN/2012 for A.Y. 2007-08. Following the same parity of reasoning, we dismiss the grounds Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue. 6. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue relates to the nature of the Product Development Expenditure claimed by the assessee as Revenue expenditure. AO held that the same constitutes capital in nature. However, the First Appellate Authority granted relief to the assessee as per the discussion given in Para No.16 of his order. 7. Before us, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the AO and mentioned that the same constitutes Capital in nature. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) on this issue needs reversal. 8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that an identical issue came up for adjudication in the assessee s own case for the same A.Y. 2008- 09 in connection with regular assessment made by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act. The present assessment is made u/s.153A of the Act. The above said assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2008-09 which contains similar disallowance by the AO came to the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted ₹ 2,00,000/- towards celebration of Indian Cost Guard s 31 years of service to the Nation. The intention of celebrating Cost Guard Day is to spread awareness of the service which operates with Indian Navy during external aggression and independently guards Indian cost line from intruders during peace. The business motive behind contributing the fund was the assessee has taken godowns on lease from M/s. Sovereign Pharma Pvt. Ltd. at Daman for storage of vaccines and Indian Cost Guard has its huge base at Daman. The expenditure has been incurred towards discharge of corporate social responsibility. 53. The Ld. DR representing the Department has not been able to show any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the expenditure. Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the Department in appeal is dismissed. 13. Considering the finding of fact by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the same A.Y. 2008-09 but for the assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) of 8D of the I.T. Rules. 18. In the First Appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide ITA No.914/PN/2013 the disallowance made under clause (ii) was remanded to the file of AO and the disallowance made under clause (iii) was not pressed by the assessee and therefore the same stands confirmed. The order of the AO for giving effect to the direction of the Tribunal in connection with clause (ii) of Rule 8D is still pending as on date. 19. In the background facts of the above, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no jurisdiction for the AO in the assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act. The addition made u/s.14A of the Act is not valid as the Department did not have the benefit of any seized papers/incriminating material to suggest granting jurisdiction to the AO in the abated assessment like this. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on various binding decisions such as All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 147 TTJ 513 (Mum) (SB), CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. 58 Taxmann.com 78. On this issue, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to Ground No. raised by the assessee in ITA No.985/PUN/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issues raised above have been adjudicated by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment years and they attained the finality. Some issues were decided in favour of the assessee and some are against the assessee. The issues raised with regard to Foreign Travel Expenses (Ground No.2), receipts from M/s. Akorn Inc., USA (Ground No.4) and Provision for Leave Encashment (Ground No.5) are decided against the assessee and rest of the above issues are decided in favour of the assessee. However, repeating the additions made by the AO in the regular assessment u/s.143(3) in the assessment made u/s.153A for the same assessment year and for the same issues, amounts to double addition and are unsustainable in law. With reference to the confirmed additions, i.e. Foreign Travel Expenses, receipts from M/s. Akorn Inc., USA and Provision for Leave Encashment, the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeals have to be dismissed as infructuous as they were already decided against the Assessee. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2, 4 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. With regard to the issues raised in (1) Ground No.3 relating to classification of stainless steel items as Furniture and Fix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
