9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon ble Supreme Court, on similar cases, this Tribunal is remanding the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to decide afresh after awaiting final order of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. (supra). We find this Tribunal in assessee s own case remanded the similar issues from Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2011-12 which are placed and respectfully following the same, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for his fresh consideration taking into account final order of Hon ble Supreme Court. Thus only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition made u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case similar claim of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the appeals are based on same identical facts and with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass a consolidated order for the sake of brevity. 3. First we shall take up ITA No.1152/Kol/2017 by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. 4. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of leave encashment in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India granted stay against the decision of Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 days is condoned. 8. Ground No.1 is relating to deletion of addition made u/s 80IA of the Act. 9. Heard both parties and persued the materials available on record. It is noted that a similar issue on same identical facts has been disposed off by this Tribunal in assessee s own case vide consolidated order dated 04.03.2016 for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09 in favour of the assessee in granting deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order at Page No.159 of Paper Book is reproduced hereinbelow: 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. representatives of both the sides, this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. representatives of both the sides, this issue involved in Grounds No. 3 4 of the revenue s appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, inter alia, by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004-05 rendered vide its order dated 23.10.2009 (supra), wherein the similar amount of incentive received by the assessee-company under the same scheme of West Bengal Government has been held to be capital in nature not chargeable to tax. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the expression does not form part of total income as appearing in Section 14A of the Act envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The Hon ble Delhi High Court has held as under: 21. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Vohra that the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Moddy (supra) was rendered in the context of allowability of deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act, where the express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the ruling of this Court in Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33 which ruled in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. Since the decision in Cheminvest Limited (supra) was followed, there is no substantial question of law that requires consideration. 17. In the light of above discussion, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly it is justified. Thus Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2019. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
