9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee‟s own case for assessment year 2003-04. CIT(Appeals) granted relief to the assessee relying on the various decisions of the Tribunal as well as the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2004 (9) TMI 323 - ITAT DELHI-C] Allowability educational cess paid on income tax as expenses - HELD THAT:- Education Cess, which is not disallowable item, on its payment, the cess is an allowable expenditure as per provision of section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Considering the settled nature of the issue as per the ratio laid down in the above referred case by CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA. [ 2018 (10) TMI 589 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in holding that section 14A contemplates an exception for deductions allowable under the Act as contained u/s 28 to 43B of the Act and that Section 44 creates special application of these provisions in the cases of insurance companies which prohibits the Assessing Officer to travel beyond section 44 and First Schedule of the Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not considering that section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 nowhere restricts the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able and it does not call for any interference. 6. On hearing both the parties on this issue, we find it is relevant to extract Para 6 of the CIT(Appeal)‟ order which read as under: 6. I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as reply of the appellant and I find that the issue in respect of disallowance u!s 14A on both the counts i.e. income in respect of sale! redemption of investment as well as dividend income is covered in favour of the appellant in Pune Tribunal's order in appellant's own case in A.Y. 2003-04 (Income in respect of sale! redemption of investments) and A.Y. 2006-07 in respect of dividend income. For the sake of clarify the relevant portion of Para 18 of Tribunal's ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d No. 1 is allowed consequent thereupon ground No. 2 automatically goes in favour of the assessee. It is further seen that Hon. Pune Tribunal in AY 2006-07 in ITA No.119/PN/2011 dated 06/05/2013 has allowed relief in respect of addition u/s.14A on account of dividend income too following its order in AY 2003-04 reproduced above. This being so, the issue stands covered by the decision of Pune Tribunal in favour of the appellant as section 14A is not applicable in the case of the appellant company. Accordingly, the ground taken by the appellant is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition u/s.14A of the I.T Act, 1961. From the above, it is evident that the CIT(Appeals) granted relief to the assessee relying o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempt dividend income should be restricted to ₹ 2,94,378/- and in relation to exempt interest income should be restricted to ₹ 17,14,999/- as determined by the Assessee based on Net Income Method‟. 3. Cross Objection No.3 : Without prejudice to Cross Objection No.1 and Cross Objection No.2 above, challenging the applicability of revised Rule 8D of the Rules for AY 2013-14 Without prejudice to above cross objections, the learned AO has erred in computing the disallowance under section 14A as per the revised Rule 8D without appreciating that revised Rule 8D has been notified vide CBDT Notification No.43/2016 dated 2nd June 2016 thereby applicable from AY 2017-18 onwards and not for AY 2013-14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. On hearing both the parties on this issue, we find that this issue is covered one by the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in the case of Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. JCIT, Range -2, Kota wherein substantial question of law No.3 is relevant in this regard (Para 3) and the same was adjudicated by the Hon‟ble High Court at Para 12 of the judgment. The Hon‟ble High Court on this issue held the said question No.3 is answered in favour of the assessee. For the sake of completeness, the said Paragraph is extracted as under: 12. We have heard consel for the parties. On the third issue in appeal no.52/2018, in view of the circular of CBDT where wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
