9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of Rs. 23,02,57,50,543/-; whereas the total income under section 115 JB of the Act was declared at Rs. 3466,72,23,316/-. 3. Order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 12/1/2015 determining the deemed income at Rs. 36,76,58,16, 010/- and the regular income at Rs. 23,42,34,67,310/- after making several additions/disallowances while computing the income. Assessee challenged the same before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) by way of the impugned order granted relief to the assessee in respect of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") to the tune of Rs. 33, 46, 00,000/-, disallowance on account of provision for gratuity, leave encashment, post-retirement medical benefits, LTC, baggage allowance etc to the tune of Rs. 1,73, 03, 86, 645/- in computing the Asst. Year: 2012-13 book profits under section 115 JB of the Act and disallowance on account of amortisation of leasehold land to the tune of Rs. 3, 32, 81, 500/-in computing book profits in section 115 JB of the Act, while confirming the disallowance on account of deduction under section 80 IA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,31,92,441/-, disallowance claimed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the assessee, state electricity boards and reserve bank of India to ensure timely payments to the assessee of the modules; that the investment in NHDC, namely, subsidiary of Asst. Year: 2012-13 the assessee, the same was made out of equity capital and internal accruals/equity/reserves. According to him the learned Assessing Officer ignored the submissions of the assessee that the assessee had not incurred any further expenditure to earn exempt income. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) on verification of record found that the investments were made out of the own funds of the assessee and therefore no disallowance could be made. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of HT Media Limited vs. PCIT in ITA No. 548 and 549/2015 by order dated 23/8/2017, PCIT vs. UK paints (India) Private Limited, Ld. CIT(A) vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (2015) 370 ITR 338 in support of his contentions. 8. Though the Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order there is no denial of the fact that the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the investments were made even out of assessee's own funds or out of interest free funds pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) (ii) of the Rules. 11. It is an admitted fact that a similar question in had arisen and was decided in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for the assessment year 89, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in assessee's own case, as was noticed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Further the facts of this issue are covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 also. 12. In the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the assessing officer by invoking section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be sustained and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. No reasons to interfere with the reasoning given and conclusions reached by the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect and therefore, the same is appended. Ground No. 1 of Revenue's appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. Coming to the disallowance of Rs. 173, 03, 86, 645/-made in completing the book profit under section 115 JB of the Act on account of provision for gratuity, leave encashment, post-Asst. Year: 2012-13 retirement medical benefits, LTC, baggage allowance etc., It was disallowed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICAI and the same has been done to meet the requirement of Companies Act and as such amortisation is permissible under section 115 JB of the Act as the same is in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act. Further it is submitted that this issue has been covered by the addition of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year: 2006-07 and followed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier and subsequent years. Asst. Year: 2012-13 18. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The submissions made before us could not be contradicted by the Revenue and more particularly the fact that this issue has been covered by the addition of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year: 2006-07 in ITA No. 136/2015 by order dated 28/02/2018. Further it is also not in dispute that a view in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court has been taken by the Tribunal for the Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2011- 12. In the circumstances since it is an issue covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant and Machinery and building vide letter dated 12/1/2015 whereunder the additions of Rs. 39,43,84,559/-was made in respect of Plant and Machinery whereas Rs. 1, 38, 19, 242/-was made to the buildings, in respect of which the assessee claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs. 2,99,24,323/-for this year. According to the assessee the addition to Plant and Machinery includes the amount of Rs. 33,72,52,844/- paid as the sales tax demand in respect of the Teesta-V project for the Financial Years 1998-99 to 2007-08 and was capitalised in the assessment year 2012-13. 24. Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had capitalised Rs. 33,72,52,844/- on account of payment of sales tax demand in respect of the Teesta-V plant, the liability for which was crystallised in the assessment year 2016-17 only, because the capitalisation of payment of sales tax was challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim and was decided against the assessee on 3/6/2015 and therefore the liable to was crystallised only in the Assessment Year: 2016-17. 25. Ld. AR by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd (2015) 378 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
