9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cularly, in the absence of any new fact or change of circumstances. Neither any basis has been disclosed establishing a reasonable nexus between the expenditure disallowed and the dividend income received. That any part of the borrowings of the Assessee had been diverted to earn tax free income despite the availability of surplus or interest free funds available remains unproved by any material whatsoever. While it is true that the principle of res judicata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, the need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case. - Decided in favour of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal and Anr. decided on 04.08.2017 wherein Para No.3, observed as under:- 3. The issue is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2017) 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC) wherein it has been held as under:- 36. Section 14A as originally enacted by the Finance Act of 2001 with effect from 1.4.1962 is in the same form and language as currently appearing in Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act. Sections 14A (2) and (3) of the Act were introduced by the Finance Act of 2006 with effect from 1.4.2007. The finding of the Bombay High Court in the impugned order that Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 14A is retrospective has been challenged by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidend income. 37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the Assessee. Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing Officer, what the law postulates is the requirement of a satisfaction in the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of the Assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absent in the present case. In this regard we may remind ourselves of what has been observed by this Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR (SC) 321 [At Page 329]. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. 5. In that view of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
