9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - being expenditure incurred on earning the exempt income by invoking provision of section 14A of the I.T. Act read with rule 8D? 3. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant crows leave to amend, tiller, delete or add grounds which may be necessary." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of MDF and particle boards from sugarcane bagasse had filed its return of income for A.Y 2012-13 on 26.09.2012, declaring a total loss of (-) Rs. 61,80,15,120/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. Original assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 25.03.2015 and the loss of the assessee company was scaled down to an amount of (-) Rs. 59,28,12,390/- after making the following disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Disallowance of the assessee's claim for depreciation Rs. 2,28,26,405/- 2. Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 23,79,327/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was observed by the CIT(A) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.O while framing the assessment for A.Y 2009-10, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to substantiate the authenticity of the said purchase transactions. On appeal, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O upheld the disallowance of the assessee's claim for depreciation of Rs. 10,39,543/- on plant and machinery which was stated to have been purchased from the aforementioned concern. Backed by the aforesaid facts, the CIT(A) was of the view that as the disallowance of the assessee's claim for depreciation on the fixed assets, viz. civil work of factory building that was made by the A.O while framing the assessment for A.Y 2009-10 had been restored by the Tribunal to his file for fresh adjudication, and the same was pending as on date, therefore, the very basis for making the disallowance did no more survive. Accordingly, he followed the view that was taken by his predecessor while disposing off the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, and directed the A.O to vacate the disallowance of the assessee's claim for depreciation of Rs. 2,28,26,405/- on fixed assets. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties qua the aforesaid is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d assets, viz. civil work of factory building executed by M/s Teracon Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,28,26,405/- for the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2012-13 also cannot be sustained. In other words, when the very basis germane to the controversy in hand i.e rejection of the assessee's claim for depreciation qua the civil work of factory building executed by M/s Teracon Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd., had been restored to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal while disposing off the revenue's appeal for A.Y 2009-10 in ITA 948/Mum/2015, dated 08.11.2017, and the same as on date is pending adjudication, therefore, now when the very basis for making the impugned disallowance of the assessee's claim for depreciation during the year under consideration i.e A.Y. 2012-13 does no more survive or ceases to be in existence, no infirmity could therein be related to the order of the CIT(A) who had rightly vacated the aforesaid disallowance of Rs. 2,28,26,405/- (supra). Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), we uphold the same. The Ground of appeal No. I raised by the revenue is dismissed. 6. We shall now take up the claim of the revenue th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.O towards disallowance of interest expenditure U/rule 8D(2)(ii) qua such investments. Also, it was observed by the CIT(A), that his predecessor had held that as the assessee had made the investments in its wholly owned subsidiary company, therefore, no administrative costs would therein be involved. Backed by his aforesaid facts, it was observed by the CIT(A) that his predecessor while disposing off the assessee's appeal for A.Y 2009-10 had vacated the entire disallowance that was made by the A.O u/s 14A. It was further observed by the CIT(A), that the order passed by his predecessor while disposing off the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the disallowance made by the A.O u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D was vacated in toto had thereafter been upheld by the Tribunal, vide its order passed in ITA No. 948/Mum/2015, dated 08.11.2017. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the CIT(A) was of the view that as the facts and the issue involved in the year under consideration i.e A.Y. 2012-13 remained the same, therefore, following the view that was taken by his predecessor in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2009-10, he directed the A.O to vacate the disallowance that was made by him u/s 14A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
