9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on his part in sustaining any part of the disallowance relatable to the interest expenditure unde Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii). We, thus, in the backdrop of the admitted fact that the assessee had significant interest-free funds to make the investments in the exempt income yielding securities, thus, are of the considered view that no part of the interest expenditure could have been disallowed under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations we vacate the disallowance of the interest expenditure under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) that was offered by the assessee in its return of income. Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Fresh claim raised by an assessee before the appellate authorities - Revised claim of Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Deduction would be the actual bad debts written off over and above the opening balance of the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- In order to drive home our view that a fresh claim can be raised by an assessee before the appellate authorities, as long as the same arises from the facts borne on record, we draw support from the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed off by way of a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No. 6609/Mum/2019, wherein the impugned order has been assailed by the assessee on the following grounds before us: " 1 . The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not deleting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent of ₹ 50.64 lakhs which was offered by the appellant in the return of income, on the ground that such claim would amount to an additional claim which could only have been made by way of filing a revised return of income and not otherwise. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that there is no restriction on the powers of an appellate authority to admit an additional claim raised otherwise than by way of filing a revised return. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have deleted the entire disallowance of ₹ 50.64 lakhs under section 14A of the Act, having held that the investments in exempt income yielding securities were made out of own funds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration was in receipt of tax free dividend income of ₹ 4,76,06,497/-. On a perusal of the records, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had offered a suo motto disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of ₹ 50,64,432/-. It was noticed by him that the assessee while computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A had excluded the investment of ₹ 20 crores made in its subsidiary company viz. M/s Saraswat Infotech Ltd. Being of the view that the assessee had wrongly excluded the aforesaid investment made in its subsidiary company while computing the disallowance u/s 14A, the A.O reworked out the disallowance at an amount of ₹ 1,86,62,836/-, as under: Calculation of disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D (31.03.2013) 1.Actual Direct Expenditure 0 2. Interest expenditure not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. (Working note 1 and 2) 17290778 3. 0.5% of average value of investment. (Working note 3 &4) 1372058 Total Disallowance u/s 14A in respect of exempt income (dividend) (1+2+3) 18662836 Working note 1 1. Interest expenditure Int. on deposits 1537,47,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of the assessee bank at ₹ 334,05,90,740/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee by way of an "additional ground of appeal" assailed the disallowance of the interest expenditure u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). It was the claim of the assessee that as it had sufficient self-owned funds for making investments in the exempt income yielding securities, thus, no disallowance of any part of the interest expenditure under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for in its hands. In support of its aforesaid contention the assessee had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom). It was further submitted by the assessee that the ITAT, Mumbai in the assessee's own case for the preceding years, viz. A.Y 2008-09, A.Y 2009-10 & A.Y 2010-11, vide a common order dated 31st October, 2018 had after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Powers Limited (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) had restore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) that the A.O had disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction of ₹ 7.5 crore, for the reason, that the reserve had not been created by debiting the profit and loss account. It was observed by the CIT(A) that his predecessor while disposing off the assessee's appeal for the preceding years, viz. A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 had allowed its claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13 had considered the issue in question and decided the same in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) following the view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding year vacated the disallowance of ₹ 7.5 crore made by the A.O under Sec. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the assessee had by way of an "additional ground", therein stated, that while raising the claim in respect of bad debts written off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, which therein contemplates, that the deduction would be restricted to the amount of bad debts which is in excess of the balance in the provision made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the assessee had by m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra). It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the CIT(A) after principally agreeing with the assessee, both on facts and the settled position of law, was thus obligated to have granted the necessary relief that was sought by the assessee. It was stated by the ld. A.R that though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra) jeopardised the powers of the A.O to allow any relief which had not been claimed by the assessee in its return of income, however, the same was not applicable insofar the appellate authorities were concerned. In support of his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R had relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom). As regards the assessee's entitlement towards claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii), it was submitted by the ld. A.R that though the CIT(A) had principally agreed and accepted the claim of the assessee, however, he had declined to allow the consequential relief for the standalone reason that the said claim was not raised in the return of income. It was subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) ₹ 13,72,058/- Total ₹ 1,86,62,836/- 8. As observed by us hereinabove, for the reason, that the assessee had significant self-owned funds to justify the investments in the exempt income yielding securities, therefore, it had by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) and the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the preceding years, viz. A.Y 2008-09, A.Y 2009-10 & A.Y 2010-11, vide a common order dated 31st October, 2018 had by raising an "additional ground of appeal" sought that the entire disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) be vacated. The CIT(A) after necessary deliberations admitted the "additional ground of appeal". As observed by us herein above, the CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Limited (supra), and also, the view taken by the Tribunal in the assesee's own case for the preceding years, principally concurred with the assessee that as significant interest-free funds were available with it for making investments in securities yielding exempt income thus, it was to be presumed that such investments w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed for the first time before the appellate authority, as long as the facts are borne out from the records is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom). In its said judgment, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that an assessee is entitled to raise additional grounds not merely in terms of legal submissions, but also additional claims to wit claims not made in the return filed by it. The Hon'ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove had observed as under: "10. A long line of authorities establish clearly that an assessee is entitled to raise additional grounds not merely in terms of legal submissions, but also additional claims to wit claims not made in the return filed by it. It is necessary for us to refer to some of these decisions only to deal with two submissions on behalf of the department. The first is with respect to an observation of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is co-terminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before the Income Tax Officer. No exception could be taken to this view as the Act does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of appellate power. Even otherwise an Appellate Authority while hearing appeal against the order of a subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations if any prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision the Appellate Authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There appears to be no good reason and none was placed before us to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade. The sentence read as a whole entitles an assessee to raise new grounds/make additional claims :- "if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made..." "or" if "the ground became available on account of change of circumstances or law" The appellate authorities, therefore, have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed. The first part viz. "if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made... "clearly relate to cases where the ground was available when the return was filed and the assessment order was made but "could not have been raised" at that stage. The words are "could not have been raised" and not "were not in existence". Grounds which were not in existence when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made fall within the second category viz. where "the ground bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar situation. In that case, the appellant/assessee did not claim a deduction in respect of the amounts it was required to transfer to contingencies reserve and dividend and tariff reserve either before the Income Tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. Subsequently, this Court had, in Amalgamated Electricity Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1974) 97 ITR 334, held that such amounts represented allowable deductions on revenue account. The appellant, therefore, raised a new claim and additional grounds before the Tribunal in that connection. The Tribunal rejected the same. The second question which was raised in the reference before the Division Bench was as under :- "(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not allowing the assessee leave to raise in its own appeals additional grounds and in the departmental appeals cross objections regarding the deductibility of the sums transferred to contingency reserve and tariff and dividend control reserve?" (B) The Division Bench which heard the reference, finding that there was a conflict of decisions, placed the papers before the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o which our attention was invited by Mr. Mistri is the judgment of a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1997) 7 SCC 489 = (1998) 229 ITR 383. In that case, the assessee had deposited its funds not immediately required by it on short term deposits with banks. The interest received on such deposits was offered by the assessee itself for tax and the assessment was completed on that basis. Even before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the inclusion of this amount was neither challenged by the assessee nor considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The inclusion of the amount was not objected to even in the grounds of appeal as originally filed before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the assessee by a letter, raised additional grounds to the effect that the said sum could not be included in the total income. The assessee contended that on a erroneous admission, no income can be included in the total income. It was further contended that the ITO and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred and failed in their duty in adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier." 18. In the case before us, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have held the omission to claim the deduction of ₹ 40,00,000/- to be inadvertent. Both the appellate authorities held, after considering all the facts, that the assessee had inadvertently claimed a deduction of ₹ 20,00,000/- paid after the end of the year in question. We see no reason to interfere with this finding. We see less reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the appellate authorities in permitting the respondent to raise this claim. That the respondent is entitled to the deduction in law is admitted and, in any event, clearly established. In the circumstances, the respondent ought not be prejudiced. 19. The orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal clearly indicate that both the appellate authorities had exercised their jurisdiction to consider the additional claim as they were entitled to in view of the various judgments on the issue, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited. This is clear from the fact that these judgments have been expressly referred to in det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs." [emphasis supplied]" 23. It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat no part of the interest expenditure could have been disallowed under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii). Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations we vacate the disallowance of the interest expenditure under Sec. 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) of ₹ 46.92 lac that was offered by the assessee in its return of income. The Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 10. We shall now advert to the assessee's grievance that though the CIT(A) had principally agreed qua its claim that the amount of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) would be the actual bad debts written off over and above the 'opening balance' of the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act, however, he had erroneously declined to allow the consequential relief thereof. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the standalone reason that had weighed in the mind of the CIT(A) for declining the incremental/additional claim of deduction raised by the assessee under Sec. 36(1)(vii), was that the said claim was neither raised by the assessee in its original return of income nor by way of filing of a revised return. Briefly stated, as observed by u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT, Chennai Vs. Abhinitha Foundations (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 251 (Mad). The observation of the CIT(A) that the amount of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) would be the actual bad debts written off over and above the "opening balance" of the provision for bad and doubtful debts account created under Sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act had not been assailed before us by the revenue, and thus, the same had attained finality. However, for the sake of completeness and in order to dispel all doubts, we may herein observe that the said claim of the assessee is duly supported by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2008, dated 26.11.2008; and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. UTI Bank Ltd., 2013, 29 taxman.com 9 (Guj). Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we herein direct the A.O to allow the assessee's revised claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 4 & 5 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 12. We shall now advert to the "additional ground of appeal" raised by the assessee before us, wherein it has sought a direction to the A.O to allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncluded that there was no prohibition on the deduction of any amount paid towards "cess" in Sec. 40(a)(ii), while computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", observing as under : "16. The aforesaid question arises in the context of provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) which inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38 of the IT Act, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", - (a) in the case of any assessee - (ia)........................... (ib)................................ (ic) …............................ (ii) any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains. [Explanation 1.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes and shall be deemed always to have included any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90 or, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee and it should be so construed as to effectuate the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. Further, the interpretation cannot go to the extent of reading something that is not stated in the provision [See AGS Tiber Vs CIT 233 ITR 207]. 22. Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that the legislature, in Section 40(a)(ii) has provided that "any rate or tax levied" on "profits and gains of business or profession" shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". There is no reference to any "cess". Obviously therefore, there is no scope to accept Ms. Linhares&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of section 10(4) of the Old Act and Section 40(a)(ii) of the new Act. 2. The view of the Income Tax Officer is not correct. Clause 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Bill, 1961 as introduced in the Parliament stood as under:- "(ii) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains". When the matter came up before the Select Committee, it was decided to omit the word 'cess' from the clause. The effect of the omission of the word 'cess' is that only taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards. 3. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought to the notice of all the Income Tax Officers so that further litigation on this account may be avoided.[Board's F. No.91/58/66-ITJ(19), dated 18-5-1967.]" 27. The CBDT Circular, is binding upon the authorities under the IT Act like Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority. The CBDT Circular is quite consistent with the principles of interpretation of taxing statute. This, according to us, is an addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h reference to 'gross income'. Besides, unlike Section 10(4) of the 1922 Act, this sub-clause does not refer to 'cess' and therefore, a 'cess' even if levied upon or calculated on the basis of business profits may be allowed in computing such profits under this Act. 30. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Income Tax Appeal No.52/2018 decided on 31st July, 2018 (Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs CIT Range-2, Kota ), by reference to the aforesaid CBDT Circular dated 18th May, 1967 has held 16 TXA17&18-13 dt. 28.02.2020 that the ITAT erred in holding that the "education cess" is a disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee. 31. Mr. Ramani, in fact pointed out three decisions of ITAT, in which, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.(supra) was followed and it was held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other specified areas with the State of Sikkim. The High Court had held that the levy of education cess, higher education cess and NCCD could not be included in the expression "duty of excise" and consequently, the amounts paid towards such cess or NCCD did not qualify for exemption under the exemption Notification. This view of the High Court was upheld by the Apex Court in Unicorn Industries (supra ). 36. The aforesaid means that the Supreme Court refused to regard the levy of education cess, higher education cess and NCCD as "duty of excise" when it came to construing exemption Notification. Based upon this, Mr. Ramani contends that similarly amounts paid by the Appellant - Assessee towards the "cess" can never be regarded as the amounts paid towards the "tax" so as to attract provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. All that we may observe is that the issue involved in Unicorn Industries (supra ) was not at all the issue involved in the present matters and therefore, the decision in Unicorn Industries ( supra ) can be of no assistance to the Respondent - Revenue in the present matters. 37. Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue however submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the Assessee in accordance with law. 40. The decision in Goetze (supra) upon which reliance is placed by the ITAT also makes it clear that the issue involved in the said case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the powers of the ITAT under section 254 of the said Act. This means that in Goetze (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was not dealing with the extent of the powers of the appellate authorities but the observations were in relation to the powers of the assessing authority. This is the distinction drawn by the division Bench in Pruthvi Brokers (supra) as well and this is the distinction which the ITAT failed to note in the impugned order. 41. Besides, we note that in the present case, though the claim for deduction was not raised in the original return or by filing revised return, the Appellant - Assessee had indeed addressed a letter claiming such deduction before the assessment could be completed. However, even if we proceed on the basis that there was no obligation on the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating that there is no restriction on the powers of an appellate authority to admit an additional claim raised otherwise than by way of filing a revised return. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have deleted the entire disallowance of ₹ 16,10,205/- under section 14A of the Act, having held that the investments in exempt income yielding securities were made out of own funds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not allowing appellants claim of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 24.46 crores on the ground that such claim would amount to an additional claim which could only have been made by way of f iling a revised return of income and not otherwise. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have allowed the claim of ₹ 24.46 crores under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act, having held that the amount of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) would be the excess of actual debts written off over the "opening balance" of provision created under section 36(1)(viia) as laid down in circular no. 17/2008 of CBDT. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yielding securities, therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure was called for in its hands u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. However, relying on the view taken by him while disposing off the assessee's appeal for A.Y 2013-14, he restricted such relief to the extent the disallowance was made by the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) sustained the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of ₹ 16,10,205/- i.e the amount that was suo motto offered by the assessee in its return of income. As regards the assessee's additional claim for deduction under Sec. 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(1)(viia), the CIT(A) following the view taken by him while disposing off the assessee's appeal for A.Y 2013-14, therein dismissed the same. Further, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of ₹ 10 crore (wrongly mentioned by him in his order as ₹ 10 lac). Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. 19. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. Both the ld. Authorised Representatives were in agreement that the issues involved in the present appeal were the same as were there before us in the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
