9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acs, we allow the appeal. - I.T.A. No.2954/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2019 - Shri Saktijit Dey, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : Shri Tanmay Phadke-Ld. DR For the Department : Shri Neil Philip Ld. DR ORDER PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):- 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as AY ] 2014-15 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [in short referred to as CIT(A) ], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 4/E-filing-111/DCIT 2(1)(1)/2016-17 dated 27/03/2018 qua confirmation of certain disallowance u/s 14A. 2.1 Facts on record reveal that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee was not correct. The submissions are sought to be fortified by drawing our attention to the fact that the assessee had made disallowance of ₹ 0.90 Lacs on account of indirect expenditure which Ld. AO failed to take note of. Lastly, it has been pointed out that the computations made by Ld. AO were erroneous since value of investments include investment in property which were not capable of yielding exempt income. The correct disallowance, as per Ld. AR, by excluding these investments, would work out to ₹ 6.06 Lacs as against ₹ 8.74 Lacs worked out by Ld. AO. The Ld. DR supported the stand in the impugned order. 4. We have carefully heard the rival submissions. We find that assessee had offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n.com 154] In the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra) , the Hon ble Court has observed as under: - 37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the best judgment of the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, the need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case. In this regard we may remind ourselves of what has been observed by this Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 (SC). We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
