9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 2608/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. The 1st ground raised in this appeal is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 32,49,904/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 14A. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2006-07 on 28.11.2006 declaring loss of Rs. 12,23,128/-. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2008 determining the total income at Rs. 21,70,170/- under the normal provisions and book profit of Rs. 7,06,37,724/- u/s 115JB of the Act. As the tax payable u/s 115JB was greater than the tax payable under the normal provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written submissions to Assessing Officer dated 15.10.2012 and (vii) copy of computation of total income and annual accounts. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the ITAT 'A' Bench Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 1747/Mum/2013 and submits that the same may be followed. Thus the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case the Tribunal vide order dated 19.01.2011 for the impugned assessment year (ITA No. 1724/Mum/2010), following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), has directed the AO to compute the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not liable to pay advance tax, as such there was no question whatsoever of interest u/s 234C of the Act, being payable. However, the AO has levied interest of Rs. 17,933/- u/s 234C of the Act. The Ld. counsel further submits that the original order dated 31.12.2008 has been set aside by the ITAT vide order dated 19.01.2011 and the case has been remanded to the AO. While passing a fresh order dated 29.10.2012, the AO has levied interest u/s 220(2) amounting to Rs. 2,13,070/-, after 30 days from the original order dated 31.12.2008. The Ld. counsel submits that as the demand has crystallized as per assessment order passed on remand dated 29.10.2012, interest u/s 220(2) ought not to have been levied. 7.1 We have perused the relevant mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -, the AO restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,22,861/- (Rs.46,43,452/- minus Rs.16,20,591/-). 11. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has agreed with the reasons given by the AO and confirmed the disallowance made by him. 12. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the AO has calculated the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D without taking into consideration the nature of income earned, the amount of expenses related to earning such income. It is stated that the AO has not substantiated as to why the submission made by the assessee dated 15.10.2012 and the detailed working of reasonable disallowance annexed thereto was not acceptable to him as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he law declared by the highest court in the state is binding on authorities or tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. In the instant case neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) had the benefit of the above two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the date of passing the assessment/appellate order. Also the assessee was not having the benefit of the above two decisions while submitting its case before the above two authorities. In view of the above facts, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D by following the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the details of date of purchase and sales and receipt of dividend that an amount of Rs. 1,37,699/- in respect of HSBC Cash Fund, is hit by the provisions of sections 94(7) of the Act. Accordingly, he added back an amount of Rs. 1,37,699/- being Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) while computing the income under the normal provisions and also in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the reasons given by the AO and confirmed the addition made by him 17. The Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the disallowance u/s 94(7) amounting to Rs. 1,37,699/- is not to be added to the net profit as per the profit and loss account for the purpose of determining book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
