9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY APPELLANT: SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT: SRI A.SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL, SRI S.ANNAMALAI AND SRI BHAIRAV.K ADVOCATES JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the parties have informed this Court that the order impugned in the present appeal is a common order in respect of three Assessment Years i.e., 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2014-15. 2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15, this Court has already decided the issue in ITA No.49/201.9. The Order passed in ITA No.49/2019 reads as under: 1. The present Income-tax appeal is arising out of the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Income-tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivered in ITA No. 658/2015 and their contention is that in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10, a similar question of law has already been answered. The Judgment delivered by the Division Bench in ITA No.685/2015 reads as under: This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2016 on the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the disallowances made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 27,91,520/- totaling to an amount of ₹ 5,20,69,580/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 27.09.2012, partly allowed the appeal and deleted such additions and disallowances made and sustained the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of ₹ 3,18,30,602/- as against the original calculation made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 4,92,78,160/- and sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of ₹ 18,71,270/- as against the original disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of ₹ 27,91,520/-. However, disallowance of ₹ 3,81,18,472/- was sustained. 3. The revenue filed an appeal against the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Tribunal, pointed out that it is an admitted fact before the Tribunal that no exempt income was claimed by the assessee during the relevant previous year. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the letter dated 15.11.2011 which was submitted by the asessee before the Assessing Officer, the ascessee had taken a specific stand that the assessee has not earned any income which is exempt from tax and therefore, the provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the fact situation of the case. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was even disputed by the revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, on admitted facts, the Tribunal has set aside the disallowance of the claim under Section 14A of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
