9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g raised by both the Revenue as well as the assessee. We are inclined to interfere with that portion of the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter for a fresh consideration to the Assessing Officer to enable him/her to consider the entire matter afresh without, in any manner, curtailing exercise of his/her power as an Assessing Officer. Tribunal did not give independent reasons as to why, in its opinion, the direction issued in the case of Beach Miners Co. Pvt. Ltd. [ 2015 (8) TMI 1031 - ITAT CHENNAI] should also apply to the case of the assessee. Tax case appeal is allowed, the findings/observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the impugned order are set aside and the order of remand is confirmed. - TAX CASE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal (IRP) has been appointed by the concerned National Company Law Tribunal. We were also informed that one Mr. R. Raghavendar, IRP is representing the respondent company. Therefore, we directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue to take private notice by e-mail to the said Mr. R. Raghavendar, IRP about the pendency of this appeal. After notice was served on the said Insolvency Resolution Professional, he had given instructions to Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel to appear for the respondent assessee. 4. We have heard Mrs. V. Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan, learned counsel on record f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is prospective in nature and could not have been made applicable in respect of assessment years prior to 2007 when this Rule was inserted. 8. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by us in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [TCA.Nos.509 and 510 of 2018 dated 07.7.2020] and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Private Ltd. Vs. PCIT [reported in (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 395] wherein it has been held that where the Assessing Officer made observations under Section 14A of the Act in respect of a dividend income earned by assessee from mutual fund investments, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel appearing for the respondent assessee has also placed reliance on (i) the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.ACB India Limited Vs. ACIT [reported in (2015) 374 ITR 108]; (ii) the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [reported in (2009) 313 ITR 340]; and (iii) the judgment of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in the case of CIT Vs. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA.Nos.732 and 733 of 2018 dated 07.7.2020]. 12. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and more particularly paragraph 11, which we have extracted above. The Tribunal, having chosen to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration, could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
