9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee is partly allowed. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As relying on H.T. Media Ltd case [ 2017 (8) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT] considering the fact that most of the investments held by the assessee are brought forward from preceding year and also the major portion of the investment is in the sister/group concerns of the assessee and thus, reverse the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made by ld. AO and accept the suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee. Addition of disallowance u/s 14A for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Issue is well-settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd [ 2014 (11) TMI 1169 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein held that provisions of Section 115JB of the Act in the matter of computation is a complete code in itself and resort need not and cannot be made to Section 14A of the Act. Similar view was also taken by ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd [ 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bengal Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case in law, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 1,07,25,333/- to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee and in doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in: 2.1. disregarding the fact that the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant to its AE does not fall within the definition of International transaction under section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.2. disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AE was intended to facilitate an acquisition by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder services and thus a separate charge is not warranted; 2.3. disregarding the fact that the Appellant had been irrevocably and unconditionally indemnified by TGBIL, being the parent and controlling company of Kahatura Holdings Limited (KHL), for any liability, arising on execution by the bank through a 'counter guarantee'. 2.4. disregarding the directions of Ld. DRP to reduce the arm s length price (ALP) adjustment to account for the benefit accruing to the Appellant due to counter corporate guarantee; 2.5. disregarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication by Ld. DRP. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not granting withholding tax credit to the extent of Rs. 4,03,309/- without assigning any reasons. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not granting foreign tax credit to the extent of Rs. 10,04,025/- without assigning any reasons. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in charging interest under section 234C of the Act which is on the basis of returned income. 8. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. Assessment Year 2013-2014: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO)/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) (in pursuance to the directions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 14A of the Act can be invoked only when the conditions laid down under sub section (1) of section 14A of the Act have been satisfied. 3.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. DRP erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 3,15,04,684/- under section 14A of the Act made by the Ld. AO based on surmises and conjectures without having recorded any reasoned dissatisfaction under section 14A(2) of the Act against the suo-moto disallowance of Rs 58,78,000 made by the assessee. 3.3. Without prejudice to above mentioned grounds of appeal, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO grossly erred in making disallowance by applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules even on strategic investments made in subsidiaries/group companies, without any intention to earn exempt income, which is pre-requisite for application of section 14A of the Act. 3.4. Without prejudice to above mentioned grounds of appeal, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO grossly erred in making disallowance by applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules even on invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2013-14: i. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant is entitled to deduction of education cess and secondary higher education cess liability on income tax and dividend distribution tax during the subject financial year amounting to INR 2,27,83,684/- as a business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, not disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. The first common issue raised in ground no. 2 of the assessee s appeal for AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 is with regard to transfer pricing adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short, the TPO ) on account of corporate guarantee furnished by the assessee to a bank on behalf of the assessee s step-down subsidiary in Cyprus namely Kahutara Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred to as KHL ). The value of the corporate guarantee given by the appellant is US$ 13.5 million. For the purpose of adjudication, we will ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see; IV. Why the counter guarantor did not issue direct guarantee. e. The Ld AR responded to the contentions and his rebuttal is summarized as under: I. M/s TGBIL has sufficient cash flow to offer the linked counter guarantee. Its credit rating is immaterial in view of its capacity to meet the obligations that may arise on this count. II. The corporate guarantee offered by the assessee and the counter guarantee by the AE to offset its obligation are interlinked transactions on similar plane. III. The assessee is duly covered and its liability is covered per this counter guarantee offered by TGBIL. IV. The structuring of the Guarantee conundrum is a function of corporate structuring and no adverse inference is called for. Further. M/s TGBIL has become the direct guarantor in FY 2014-15 onwards. f. The panel has considered the submissions of the Officer the Ld AR. The activity of Corporate Guarantee is not a shareholder service as it is not an existential service nor is it a mandatory service to help the recipient entity. It is pure commercial transaction which attains nature of International transaction in view of the facts. The issue of Counter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Corporate Guarantee determined correctly by the TPO. Any entity independent of a binding influence of the ownership grip, shall make value out of the corporate guarantee extended for any future probable obligation arising out of loan repayment default. In view of the foregoing, the set off cannot be allowed and the action of the TPO is upheld in the specific facts of the case for this assessment period. The objection set 2.6, in respect of the add on of 200 basis points on LIBOR plus charges, will be telescoped in the directions supra. The action of the TPO is, therefore, upheld in the above terms and with the directions as supra. g. This set of objections is disposed of as above. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the order of ld. AO framed u/s 143(3)/144C of the Act. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the detailed submissions which are reproduced below: 1. The Appellant is engaged in the business of cultivation, manufacture, blending, purchase and sale of tea, manufacturing and exporting of instant tea; purchase and sale of other goods and also deals in other beverages. The Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter guarantee. The same has been stated in the counter guarantee agreement entered between the Appellant and TGBIL. (Please refer to page 105 of the paperbook for AY 2012-13 and page 163 for AY 2013-14). TGBIL had adequate cash assets (as depicted below), liquid investments and other securities to provide the said counter guarantee. The cash assets of the company were a significant USD 380 million vis-a-vis the loan amount of USD 13.35 million. Thus, there is no risk involved in providing the guarantee by the Appellant. (Please refer to page 557 of the paperbook for AY 2012-13 and page 138 for AY 2013-14.) The cash and liquid investments available with TGBIL at the time of the guarantee is depicted below (the same has been extracted from the audited financial statements of the company): Cash and liquid investments Amount in GBP Amount in USD 2010 2009 2010 2009 Bank deposits 240,579,000 124,007,000 357,555,000 184,302,549 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 2010 enclosed to the affidavit. 2.6 The Appellant states that the aforesaid corporate guarantee has been released by the Bank with effect from financial year 2014-15 and a fresh corporate guarantee has been provided by TGBIL to Rabo Bank (please see page 421 of the paperbook for the financial year 2012-13). 2.7 Furthermore, without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant submitted that in the event the TPO intended to treat the corporate guarantee as an international transaction then the addition ought to be limited to 0.25%. 2.8 For the assessment year 2012-13, the TPO by his order dated January 29, 2016 held the corporate guarantee to be an international transaction and proposed an adjustment at the rate of 200 bps amounting to Rs. 1,07,25,333/-. The DRP by its order dated May 27, 2016 also held the corporate guarantee to be an international transaction but directed the TPO to make a downward adjustment to the arm s length price after taking into account the counter guarantee as the same reduces the probable liability of the Appellant (Please refer to page 16 of the Appeal Set). However, the TPO in his give effect order dated June 30, 2016 failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Appellant. 2.12 Further, the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No.: 5816/Del/2012) (hereinafter referred as Bharti Airtel s case ) has also held that a corporate guarantee issued for the benefit of the AEs, which does not involve any costs to the Appellant, does not have any bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the enterprise and, therefore, it is outside the ambit of international transaction to which ALP adjustment can be made. 2.13 Before referring to the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in PCIT vs. Redington (India) Ltd., (2020) 122 taxmann.com 136 (Madras) (hereinafter referred to as Redington s case ) case in detail, it is pertinent to mention that in Bharti Airtel s case [page 1 of the said Compendium], in paragraph 33 [pages 23-24 of the said Compendium], it was held on the facts of that case that there was no material on record to indicate that the provision of corporate guarantee had any real impact on profits, income, losses or assets. Bharti Airtel s case was considered in Prolifics Corporation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 55 taxmann.com 226 (Hyderabad)(herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f transfer pricing adjustment was not dealt with or disputed in the order of the Hon ble Tribunal rendering the findings perverse [Please see paragraph 69 at page 101-102 of the said Compendium], 2.15 As enumerated above, for a transaction between two associated enterprises to be treated as an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act, it must have a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises. Clause (c) of Explanation (i) to section 92B covers, inter alia, guarantee . Thus, the provision of a corporate guarantee by an Appellant will be treated as an international transaction if the same has a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of the Appellant. In so far as profits/income/losses are concerned, the Appellant did not incur any cost for furnishing the corporate guarantee. The Appellant merely put its signature as a guarantor on the loan documents between KHL and the banks. 2.16 Further, it is not the business of the Appellant to provide guarantee against fees/commission. It is not the case that if the same corporate guarantee was provided by the Appellant to or for any other person, it would have earned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e finding of both the lower authorities and also took us to the written submissions dated 16.07.2021 stating that there is an international transaction carried out between the assessee and the associate enterprises and since the assessee has not charged the corporate guarantee fee for the guarantee given to a bank for giving loan to one of its step-down subsidiaries, there is a cost to the enterprise and the adjustment for the same has rightly been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Ld. D/R also made submissions regarding the charge of guarantee fee, cost to the enterprise, valuation of charge on service, corporate guarantee and the share holder service. He also made submissions regarding the corporate guarantee upstream theory and stated that a counter guarantee taken by the assessee company is merely an internal arrangement since appellant is the ultimate parent company and therefore upstream guarantee is not valid as they are given to overcome structural subordination by putting the claims of parent company creditors on a pari passu basis with those of subsidiary company creditors. Ld. D/R thus, concluded that this arrangement of counter guarantee is often seen as an example ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purview of international transaction since there is no bearing on profits or losses because the assessee has taken a counter guarantee and secondly even if it is considered as an international transaction there are plethora of decisions wherein corporate guarantee under similar set off circumstances have been estimated at 0.25%. 10. A regards the first contention is concerned, we observe that international transaction has been defined in Section 92B(1) of the Act and the same reads as follows: 92B. (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, international transaction means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, we have sustained the addition for corporate guarantee fee applying 0.5% rate. We draw support from the decision of coordinate Bench, Guwahati in the case of Greenply Industries Limited vs. ACIT in ITA No. 232/GAU/2019 order dated 21.06.2022 wherein the issue has been examined at length and Arm's Length fee has been restricted @ 0.5%. 34. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during the year under appeal, the assessee-company had following inter-company guarantee arrangements for its Associated Enterprises:- (i) Providing a Corporate Guarantee to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) for a term loan/letter of credit facility on behalf of Greenlam Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. ( Greenlam Asia ) (referred to pages 446 to 461 of the paper book); (ii) Providing a Corporate Guarantee to United Overseas Bank (UOB) for a commercial property loan on behalf of Greenlam Asia (referred to pages 462 to 471 of the paper book); and (iii) Providing a standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) to City Bank N.A. for on behalf of Greenlam America Inc. ( Greenlam USA ) and Greenlam Asia (referred to pages 478 to 485 of the paper book). Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TS-200-HC-2015(Mum)-TP 0.50% 4. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Refer to page 409 to 490 of the Legal Compendium to TP) TS-260-ITAT-2013(Mum) -TP, 2013-TII-185-ITAT Mum-TP 0.38% 5. Asian Paints Limited ITA No. 408/Mum/2010 and ITA No. 1937/Mum/2010 0.25%, 0.35% 6. Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited TS-714-ITAT-2012(Mum)-TP 0.50% 7. Nimbus Communication Limited TS-167-ITAT-2013(Mum)- TP, ITA No. 6816/Mum/2010 and ITA No. 7105/Mum/2011 0.50% 8. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited ITA No. 5013/Mum/2012 and ITA No. 5488/Mum/2012 0.53% 9. Godrej Household Products Ltd. (earlier Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.) TS-330-ITAT-2013(Mum)-TP TS-68-ITAT-2014(Mum)-TP 0.50% 10. Mahi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... practice. Within an affiliated corporate group, some entities represent higher credit risks than others. The weaker entities may either be unable to obtain financing or may be able to obtain credit facilities only upon unfavourable terms. When a corporate borrowing group includes multiple businesses, it is common for lenders to look to guarantees of corporate affiliates to support the credit facility. In the instant case, the corporate guarantee has been provided by the assessee on behalf of the Associated Enterprise and is in the nature of a downstream guarantee, where the guarantee is provided by the parent company for obligations of its subsidiary. So far as the issue that the present transaction of giving corporate guarantee falls under the category of international transaction, it is not under the dispute before us, as it was held against the assessee by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and against the said view, the assessee has not filed any appeal or Cross Objection. 39. The only issue remains is the computation of quantum of Corporate Guarantee fee adjustment to be made in the hands of assessee. Transfer Pricing Officer levied the Corporate Guarantee fees @ 1.22%, 1.69% 1.27% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id guidelines which has been relied upon by the Id. Counsel for the assessee, business strategies also could include market penetration schemes and taxpayer seeking to penetrate a market or to increase its market share might temporarily charge a price for its product that is lower than the price charged for otherwise comparable products in the same market. As explained further, a tax payer seeking to enter a new market or expand (or defend) its market share might temporarily incur 4 ITA 6816/M/10 7105/Mum/2011 higher costs and hence achieve lower profit levels than other taxpayers operating in the same market. In our opinion, the relevant facts of the present case do not indicate that there was any such business strategy adopted by the assessee in not charging commission in respect of guarantees issued for its Associated Enterprises. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to suggest that any such business strategy was adopted by the assessee with specific intention or motive and the case has been sought to be made out merely on the basis of commercial expediency by claiming that the assessee was benefited as a result of giving the guarantees in the form of commercial benefits secu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ific Region, the TPO had taken comparables from America. There, it is seen that comparables taken by assessee as well as TPO were not from Singapore. In view of non-availability of comparables from Singapore, it may be appropriate to delve into judicial pronouncements on rate of Guarantee fee for TP adjustment. i) In the case of Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd (Supra), assessee's AE availed loan from ICICI Bank for which assessee gave corporate guarantee. The loan was for working capital as well as capital expenditure. Assessee had charged guarantee commission @ 0.5%. The AO took external comparable and benchmarked the rate at 3%. Before the Hon'bie Tribunal, it was stated that assessee itself paid 0.6% to ICICI Bank for guaranteeing a separate loan for assessee. Hon'bie Tribunal took the view that 0.5% guarantee fee is reasonable in view of the fact that rate of interest paid by AE was much lower than interest paid by assessee itself. TP adjustment made by TPO was accordingly deleted. The rate of 0.5% was followed by Hon'bie Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Nimbus Communication (Supra). Series of decisions have been rendered by the different benches of Mumbai Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial question of law arises out of the said appeal. Copy of the order of the HC [ITAT 327 of 2018, GA 3524 of 2018 GA 3526 of 2018 dated 13 December 2017] is enclosed at pages 29-30 of the CTCL. The Appellant has always disallowed the direct expenses incurred by it for the purposes of earning exempt income. Additionally, the Appellant also suo motu disallows a portion of the expenses pertaining to managerial/staff time spent on investments and/or portfolio related work. The computation of the disallowance made by the Appellant is also approved by its auditors. In the aforesaid case pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, the Appellant had made a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 19,82,000/- as expenditure incurred for earning exempt income and the said computation was made by taking into account the salary and other related expenditure pertaining to the managerial staff for investment related work. The Assessing Officer without dealing with the aforesaid suo motu disallowance and the computation, simply adopted the computation in terms of rule 8D by observing that disallowance on the basis of infrastructure used by such should also been made. The Hon ble Tribunal rejected such arbi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence on record to establish that any expenditure had been incurred by assessee for earning exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D could not be made:- Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited [2010] 326ITR 1 (SC) Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. -vs.- DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) DCIT -vs.- Allahabad Bank [ITA No. 1282 of 2012 dtd 01-06-2016 (Koi)] ACIT-vs.- Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2016] 157ITD 667 (Koi) ACIT-vs.- SIL Investment Ltd. [2012] 54 SOT 54 (Delhi) Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT[2012] 54 SOT356 (Delhi) CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (Punj Har) Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. -vs.- Addl. CIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 301 (Delhi - Trib.) 3.6 As per Section 14A(2), provision of Rule 8D comes in to play only when the AO records a finding that he is not satisfied with the assessee s method. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- REI Agro Ltd. [ITAT 161 of 2013 dated 23-12-03 - Cat HC], wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng average value of investment in Rule 8D(2)(iii), only those investments from which the appellant earned dividend income was required to be considered and not the total investment at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgements - Vireet Investments Private Limited [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415(Special Bench) DCIT-vs.- EIH Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 417 (Kolkata - Trib.) REI Agro Ltd. -vs.- DCIT [2013] 144ITD141 (Kolkata - Trib.) Usha Martin Ventures Limited -vs.- DCIT [ITA No. 847/Kol/2013] Integrated Coal Mining Ltd -vs.- DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 260 (Koi) Pricewaterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. -vs.- ACIT [2020] 183 ITD 354 (Kolkata - Trib.) 4.1 The next common issue is disallowance under section 14A of the Act while computing book profits in accordance with section 115JB of the Act, which is a self contained code. 4.2 Section 115JB of the Act provides that for the purpose of computation of tax on book profit, adjustments as specified in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act are required to be made. Clause (f) of the said Explanation provides that any expenditure incurred for ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same by his rectification order dated December 29, 2017 and the same is not being pressed with respect to assessment year 2013-14. However, with respect to assessment year 2012-13, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer has not granted credit of withholding tax credit of Rs. 4,03,309/- and in this regard, the Appellant prays that directions may be given to the Assessing Officer to grant the said credit in accordance with law. 6. The Appellant has raised also a common issue, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, of denial of foreign tax credit in both the assessment years. However, the said issue has been addressed by the Assessing Officer vide his rectification orders dated August 28, 2019 and December 29, 2017 passed for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively, and as such the same is not being pressed. 7. With respect to assessment year 2012-13 the Appellant states that interest under section 234C was computed at Rs. 11,45,715/-, however, in the final assessment order interest under section 234C has been computed at Rs. 13,09,692/-. In this light it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said credit has been granted vide order dated July 22, 2021 passed under section 154/154/143(3)/l 44C of the Act and is not being pressed. 12. The Appellant has also raised an issue with respect to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years, however, the same is not being pressed as the issue is premature in nature. 13. The additional ground of claim of education cess is not being pressed by the Appellant. 15. On the other hand, ld. D/R supported the order of the lower authorities on all these issues. 16. Now, we are taking the next common issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act raised commonly in ground no. 3 for AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14. We observe that the assessee suo moto made a disallowance of Rs. 46,72,000/- Rs. 58,78,000/- u/s 14A of the Act towards expenditure related to exempt income. Ld. AO examined the quantification of the said disallowance but was not satisfied and observed that the company managed its investment portfolio by using the common establishment/infrastructure and therefore, it is not possible to justify the working adopted for computing the disallowance without applying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds ground no. 7 for AY 2012-13 regarding charging of interest u/s 234C of the Act, it is stated by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the interest u/s 234C of the Act was computed at Rs. 11,45,715/-. However, in the final assessment order interest u/s 234C of the Act has been computed at Rs. 30,09,692/-. Considering the prayer made by the assessee we direct ld. AO to recompute the interest u/s 234C of the Act and decide in accordance with law. Thus, ground no. 7 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Ground no. 8 for AY 2012-13 is general and consequential in nature which needs no adjudication. 21. Now, we take up the remaining grounds for AY 2013-14. 22. Ground no. 5 raised regarding consideration of capital gains amounting to Rs. 1,36,025/- twice, the said issue being addressed by ld. AO in the rectification order dated 29.12.2017, this issue has not been pressed. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 23. As regards ground no. 6 relating to not allowing deduction u/s 80G of the Act at Rs. 1 Cr, we find that the assessee gave donation to Assam Investment Advisory Society considering it to be a donation eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act but till the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
