9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1172/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, 1361/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 and 1928/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012- 13. However, the Ld. DR has failed to submit anything contrary to that of the contention made by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee in this regard. 3. Heard the parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. The appellant is a Government company promoted by the Government of Gujarat mainly acted as nodal agency for augmenting power generation in the state of Gujarat, generation of power through wind mill, development of solar part etc. The appellant company declared its income at Rs. 8,65,350/- through its return filed on 29.11.2014 followed by a revised return of income on 24.02.2015 declaring total income at NIL. It is relevant to mention that assessee has suo moto disallowed Rs. 1,00,000/- as expenses relating to the earning of such exempt income. Upon perusal of the profit and loss account and the statement of income for the year under consideration it was found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 1,26,94,978/- from large amount of investment made in assets yiel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant appeal, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of PCIT-vs- Shreno Ltd. reported in [2019] 102 taxmann.com 129 (Gujarat). On the contrary the Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the Learned AO. 13. Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears from the records that the assessee has received dividend income of Rs. 1,60,74,728/- from shares held by it. Taking into consideration the disallowance made in the earlier year the Learned AO has applied section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rule and disallowed the impugned amount of Rs. 47,23,579/-. However, it has been pointed out by the Learned CIT(A) that most of the investment made by the assessee were not earlier years. We have also considered the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of PCIT-vs-Shreno Ltd. In the said matter, business funds and investment funds of the assessee were mixed up and it was not appreciated by the Learned AO in holding that the funds deployed for earning tax free income were entirely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, the instant appeal. 31. We find that this particular issue as already been dealt with by us in ITA No.1172/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 in Revenue's appeal whereby and whereunder such disallowance made by the authorities has been deleted by us relying upon the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of PCIT-vs-Shreno Ltd. reported in [2019] 102 Taxman.com 129 (Guj). Hence, in the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. Hence, the ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed." Since the identical issue has already been considered by the Coordinate Bench in favour of the assessee we found no reason to observe otherwise and hence in the absence of any changed circumstances respectfully relying upon the same we delete the addition made by the authorities below. Ground No. 2:- 7. This ground relates to disallowance applying provision of Section 115JB while completing disallowances under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. At the time of the hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 14A can be resorted to for finding out the expenditure relatable to any income which is exempt. [Para 6.2] * When the question arises as to the applicability of similar provisions in different parts of the statute, then it is not only legitimate but proper to read both the provisions in their context. * If context is same, different meaning cannot be assigned. It is to be found out that what mischief was intended to be remedied by inserting a particular section. The intention of the legislature once is manifested in a particular section in the statute then said intention cannot be given a different meaning, if a similar provision has been incorporated in a different section in the statute. The intention of the Legislature must be found out by reading the statute as a whole. [Para 6.3] * Literal meaning cannot always be followed logically, because sometimes it tends to defect the obvious intention of the Legislature and results in producing a wholly unreasonable result. [Para 6.4] * Thus, the submission of Department is that when basic object and purpose of section 14A and clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is same, then it cannot be said that merely be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
