9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- having ratio of these two figures of 11.01% and this order was also followed in AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11. We are of the considered view that when the method of determining the ratio between the payable amount out of total deposits has been consistently followed by the Revenue Department since AY 2006-07 and the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) s has not been challenged nor any distinguishing facts and contrary provisions of law have been brought on record by the ld. DR for the Revenue, we find no scope to interfere the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A). So, ground no.1 is determined against the Revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A to 0.5% of the average investment income - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that when al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst ₹ 14,30,74,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company is a Government of India public sector undertaking providing telephone services and internet service provider services, IN services, integrated service digital network services, multimedia services, paging services and other value added services and to carry on the business of telephone, telegraph cable and wireless company etc. It is also into providing telecommunication services like internet, e-tendering, cyber caf services and sale of ISP packs anmol cards. Assessing Officer (AO) after rejecting the contentions raised by the assessee company made addition of ₹ 41,11,348/- on account of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the higher forum and supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A). 7. Ld. CIT (A) decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following its own order dated 01.03.216 for AY 2011-12 by returning following findings :- 7. Ground no. 3 pertains to a disallowance of interest on customer's deposit account. In the A. Y. 06-07, the entire amount outstanding under the head customer's deposits was held to be non payable and, therefore, the said amount was added to the income of the appellant and the corresponding interest was also disallowed. However, on appeal, the CIT(A) held that only the amount of ₹ 127,69,83,720/- was not payable out of the total deposits of ₹ 11,59,32,90,009/-. The ratio of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment since AY 2006-07 and the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) s has not been challenged nor any distinguishing facts and contrary provisions of law have been brought on record by the ld. DR for the Revenue, we find no scope to interfere the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A). So, ground no.1 is determined against the Revenue. GROUND NO.2 10. Ld. CIT (A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A to 0.5% of the average investment income of ₹ 179,15,000/- as against ₹ 14,30,74,000/- made by the AO. Undisputedly, during the year under assessment, assessee company had received NIL dividend income having an investment of ₹ 2213.73 million as on 31.03.2012. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat since all the investments mentioned in Schedule F do not yield exempt income, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) has been restricted only to 0.5% of the average investment income which is exempt, irrespective of whether such exempt income was received during AY 2011-12. This approach has been upheld by the learned ITAT. We do not find any perversity in the same or find any reason to entertain the present appeal to interfere with this finding that is based on facts. Addition with respect to the prior period income - HELD THAT:- As noticed that the profit and loss account of the Respondent- Assessee shows that it has neither taken the prior period income in its taxable profit, nor has considered the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
