9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62 - ITAT CHENNAI] Deduction of TDS u/s 194A - As held by [ 2021 (11) TMI 577 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 21.9.2021 Hon ble Court that the entitlement of interest accruing on the FDs to the assessee would be dependent on the result of the pending Court/CBI proceedings and consequently, till the conclusion of the said court proceedings, the interest accruing on the FD cannot be considered as income for the purpose of deduction of TDS u/s 194A and directed the bank not to deduct TDS on the interest of FDs. However, it cannot be treated as absolving the assessee of its liability to pay tax on the interest accruing on the FD if the petitioner becomes entitled to the same after conclusion of the court proceedings. Being so, in our opinion, the lower authorities has committed an error in bringing the interest accrued on FD which is subject to prohibitory order by CBI Hyderabad into tax in these assessment years under consideration and the same has to be taxed in assessment year when it was actually received by the assessee or right to receive accrued to the assessee - assessee has to pay the tax on the same on actual accrual of right to receive thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee are situated in Bellary district of Karnataka, but bordering the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh. The CBI, Hyderabad, filed a charge-sheet before the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge for CBI, Hyderabad under section 173 of CRPC against Shri. B. V. Sreenivasa Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited and others for illegal mining, encroachment of reserved forest area, falsification of documents, conspiracy etc. The Hon'ble CBI Court, Hyderabad has placed prohibitory orders on the following fixed deposits vide orders u/s 102 of CRPC vide letter dated, 11-10-2009 and 13-10-2009 in case No.R.C.1)M)2009: SI. No.' Name of the Bank Amount of Fixed Deposit (In Rs. ) 1. SBI, Kudithini Branch, Bellary. 122,55,75,375/- 2. SBI, Kudithini Branch, Bellary. 80,71,509/- 3. ING Vysya Bank, Bellary. 2,31,63,856/- 3.1. In pursuance of the same, the banks had informed the assessee about the restraint order of the Hon'ble Special Judge, CBI Court, Hyderabad, communicating that the assessee would not be entitled to draw any amount or interest from the said fixed deposits. The assessee filed the return of income for the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013-14, the assessee, should have accounted the interest income and declared it to tax in the subject assessment year also. (ii). The prohibitory order of the Hon'ble Court only restrains the assessee from operating the accounts, but the assessee continues to hold the right over the contents of the account. Hence the interest income has accrued to the assessee in the subject assessment year itself and accordingly it is assessable to tax. (iii). The bank has made TDS and the TDS is made or credited to the account of the deductee concerned only when the interest has accrued. Hence the entire interest, on which TDS is made, has accrued to the assessee in the subject assessment year and the same cannot be deferred. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3.4. The learned CIT(A) has referred to section .2(24), section 2(45), section 4 & section 5 of the Act and upheld the addition on the ground that: (a). Placing of prohibitory orders over the deposits has not affected the accrual of interest and as per section 5 of the Act, and there is accrual of interest income in the subject assessment year. (b). The prohibitory orders are in existence for more than 5 years and the fixed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Hill County Properties Limited in ITA No.1644/HYD/2014 (URO) cited in ACIT vs. Medravathi Agro Farms (P.) Ltd. [2015] 63 taxmann.com 274 (Hyderabad - Trib.) referred to AS-9 and held that: "where the ability of the assessee for ultimate collection with reasonable certainty is lacking at the time of raising any claim, revenue recognition is postponed to the extent of uncertainty involved………it is also provided that when the recognition of the revenue is postponed due to the effect of uncertainties, it is considered revenue of the period in which it is properly recognised." 4.2 The following clauses in Accounting Standard-9 (AS-9) dealing with the revenue recognition may be referred to: "9.1. Recognition of revenue requires that revenue is measurable and that at the time of sale or the rendering of the service it would not be unreasonable to expect ultimate collection. 9.2 Where the ability to assess the ultimate collection with reasonable certainty is lacking at the time of raising any claim, e.g., for escalation of price, export incentives, interest etc., revenue recognition is postponed to the extent of uncertainty involved. In such cases, it may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the basic concept of income in its landmark decision, way-back in 1954, reported in E.D. Sassoon & Co. [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC). In summary, it held as under: "It is clear therefore that income may accrue to the assessee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires the right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive the income. There must be a debt owed to him by somebody." (Emphasis added) 4.6 He submitted that the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is followed consistently over the years in order to resolve the disputes arising as to whether a particular item was taxable or not applying the concept of income. 4.7 He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recently as in 2017, in another landmark decision in CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC)/2017 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC), referred to the said decision in E.D. Sassoon & Co. (Supra) in deciding whether the assessee acquired any right to receive the income under the JDA as soon as it was executed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certainty of its accrual and receipt, the assessee would be prejudiced and put to irretrievable loss. 4.10 In the above-mentioned case i.e., Balbir Singh Maini (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the above passage from the decision in Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (Supra) was cited with approval in Morvi Industries Limited (Supra). The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 15 & 16 (Balbir Singh Maini) are as under: "15. The above passage was cited with approval in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1972) 4 SCC 451 : 1974 SCC (Tax) 140 : (1971) 82 ITR 835] in which this Court also considered the dictionary meaning of the word "accrue" and held that income can be said to accrue when it becomes due. It was then observed that: (SCC p. 454, para 11) "11. … the date of payment … does not affect the accrual of income. The moment the income accrues, the assessee gets vested with the right to claim that amount even though it may not be immediately." 16. This Court further held, and in our opinion more importantly, that income accrues when there "arises a corresponding liability of the other party fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent conclusion that interest income had accrued to the assessee, who holds right over the asset even though the FDs are under the prohibitory orders, as long as it is not appropriated otherwise in pursuance of order of the Court - Para 5.4 of page 9 of the impugned assessment order (AY 2014-15). 4.13 In fact the learned AO has extracted the relevant portion from the decision in Morvi Industries Limited (supra) relied upon by him in para 5.3 of pages 8 & 9 of his order. The same is as under: "……The dictionary meaning of the word "accrue" is "to come as an accession, increment, or produce: to fall to one by way of advantage: to fall due". The income can thus be said to accrue when it becomes due. The postponement of the date of payment has a bearing only in so far as the time of payment is concerned, but it does not affect the accrual of income. The moment the income accrues, the assessee gets vested with the right to claim that amount even though it may not be immediately. There also arises a corresponding liability of the other party from whom the income becomes due to pay that amount. The further fact that the amount of income is not subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Court held (para 5): "Admittedly, the assessee had purchased the shares concerned from Jaipuria Brothers Limited and the restraint order was passed in an execution instituted by the receiver of the Estate of Sara Bhai Jai Singh Bhai against Jaipuria Brothers Limited and the court by an interim order dated September 29, 1967, had restrained Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. from paying dividends on the said shares to any one till further orders. The restraint order continued till May 26, 1972. Thus, during the year under consideration, i.e., the accounting year ending June 30, 1970, the petitioner's right to receive dividends was under suspension because of the restraint order passed by the court. In such circumstances, the dividend declared by the company could not be said to have accrued to the assessee because neither could the company pay the same to the assessee nor could the assessee recover it till the restraint order was vacated." 4.17 He submitted that in the case of the assessee, the right to receive the interest is under the suspension because of the restraint order passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge, CB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges for supply of electricity which were added by the ITO while passing the assessment orders in respect of the assessment years under consideration. The AAC was right in deleting the said addition made by the ITO and the Tribunal had rightly held that the claim at the increased rates as made by the assessee- company on the basis of which necessary entries were made represented only hypothetical income and the impugned amounts as brought to tax by the ITO did not represent the income which had really accrued to the assessee-company during the relevant previous years. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in upsetting the said view of the Tribunal." 4.20 He further submitted that the enhanced charges for supply of electricity were collected by the said company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no accrual of income in view of the letter of the Government of Uttar Pradesh directing the assessee to maintain the status quo. The fact that the enhanced electricity charges were collected and the assessee maintained its books of account on mercantile system was not considered relevant to decide whether income accrued or not. In contrast, the assessee is neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest accrued is the income of the assessee in the year in which it is accrued. Further the deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee are placed under Prohibitory Order. But it had not affected accruing interest. It is also clear from the submissions of the assessee that the 5 years period of prohibitory order is also completed. The said deposits continue to exist in the name of the assessee and are earning interest normally as any other deposit. Further, there is no acceptable reason as to why after offering interest income to tax in earlier year, the assessee should suddenly stop this year. The amount deposited is certainly the positive income of the assessee. Hence the income accrued is the income of the assessee in the year it is accrued. Further the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting. Thus, the assessee has to offer the accrued interest as income in the year it is accrued. 5.1 Further, he submitted that income has been accrued to the assessee in terms of section 4 r.w.s. 2(24) of the Act and same to be treated as income in the assessment year under consideration following mercantile system of accounting. In view of the above and considering the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him. Where according to the method followed by the assessee, the same was accrued during the year of account, and it seems, that it would be brought into account of the income as soon as right to receive is accrued to assessee. In these circumstances, on actual accrual should be considered only on the basis of right to receive the same. Thus, it is clear, that income accrued to the assessee, without the actual right to receive the same, cannot be brought to tax. If the assessee acquires the right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him, though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive the income. There must be a debt owed to him by the parties concerned with whom the assessee made deposits for interest. Unless and until there is a creation of right in favour of the assessee, debt due by somebody it cannot be said that he had acquired a right to receive the income or that income, has accrued to him (E.D. Sasoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 SC). It is no doubt that the accrual of income does not depend upon the accounts maintained by him. The accounts may be made up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been received. In the absence of any situation or allegation or collusion, the revenue cannot resort to any attempt to rewrite the agreement with a view to impose the levy of tax shall be when the transaction between the parties are at arm's length For this proposition we rely on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.S. Bist & Sons (149 ITR 276), wherein held that "The Act does not clothe the taxing authorities that any power or jurisdiction rewrite terms of agreement entered into, particularly in view of the finding of the Tribunal that "there is nothing to suggest the parties were not belong with each other at arm's length and there is no situation of any collusion, commercial expediency of the contract is to be adjusted by the contracting parties as to its terms. It was further made clear that under the taxing system it is up to the assessee to conduct his business in his wisdom. The assessee may enter into commercial transaction with other party who has ad idem with the assessee as to the terms & conditions. In the absence of any collusion between the two, it is not possible to vary the terms." Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Cem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h court judgement is reported in CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 8. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in that matter has held that the payment of retention money in the case of contract is deferred and is contingent on satisfactory completion of contract work. The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amount to an income of the assessee in the yar in which the amount is retained. The other judgement relied upon is in the case of CIT Vs. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd. reported in (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad). In that judgement also, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the amount retained does not accrue to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee would not be liable." 6.5 Further, Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. East Cost Construction and Ind Ltd. (283 ITR 297), wherein held that "the assessee was entitled to receive the retention money after completion of the contract. On the date of the bills, no enforceable liability had accrued or arisen. When the assessee had no right to receive the money by virtue of the contract betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per cent value for work done after deducting retention money -Whether it could be said that on date of submission of bills assessee had no right to receive entire amount on completion of work and retention money did not accrue to it on such date but on later date in accordance with terms of contracts and ITO would be unjustified in making any addition by treating entire contract amount as accrued on submission of bills on completion of work - Held, yes" 5. The decision of the ITAT Mumbai 'H' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Emerson Network Power India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 27 SOT 593 (MUM.) relied upon by the Id. D/R is not applicable to the facts of the case, for the reason that, what was considered by the Bench was performance bank guarantee and not retention money as in the case of the assessee company. Even otherwise, we are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax vs Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1169/Ko1/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITA No. 1170/Ko1/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITA No. 1171/Ko1/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accounting practise followed by the party though a part of the bill amount was retained by the contractee party and would be paid afterwards on agreed conditions, the assessee in its books of account has booked the entire revenue as and when the bills were actually raised and hence, the entire amount was reflected in the revenue from the operations in the P&L Account. It was brought to the notice of the AO that due to the said practice profit before tax as per P& L Account for the year ended on 31.03.2014 is Rs. 204,38,30,030/- and the said profit was arrived after taking into account entire bills raised on parties for contract work including the retention money. It was explained further that thereafter, sales was credited and the party was debited with the entire bill amount and on that basis assessee had filed the original return on 29.11.2014 without considering the actual deduction made by the parties on account of the retention money and had shown total income of Rs. 194,46,16,540/-. And when the assessee realised that its real income was much less than the revenue booked in the account it filed a revised return on 17.03.2016 claiming deduction of the retention money which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate by the Power Grid meaning the retention money would be given only after successful commissioning and after issuance of the taking over certificate. According to the assessee, as per such duly executed contract entered into between the parties, the contractee had retained specified percentage of the bills amount as retention money and in this assessment year these parties have retained a sum of Rs. 142,53,74,710/- as retention money on the bills raised during the year. In the light of the said fact, according to assessee, it was neither entitled nor it could have claimed the retention money as income accrued till the entire project was commissioned. And since the projects were not completed during the year under consideration, the retention money has not accrued as income of the assessee and, therefore, assessee claimed deduction of the same. It was also brought to our notice that retention money would be included in the respective years when the project will be completed and it was also brought to our notice that a part of the said retention money retained by the parties were disbursed to the assessee in the succeeding assessment years, and which were duly offered as income in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra); Hon'ble Bombay High court in CIT Vs. Associated Cables P. Ld. (supra) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 295 (Mad). We hold that in the factual circumstances especially as per the terms of contract between the assessee and the contractee, the retention money retained by the contractee is deferred payment and is contingent upon satisfactory completion of contract work. We hold that the right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the assessee had no vested right to receive the same in this assessment year, therefore, it would not amount to an income of the assessee in the year in which it is retained. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and so, we confirm it and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue." 6.8 Further Accounting Standard (AS-9) with respect of revenue recognition clearly provides as under: "Revenue from sale of rendering services should be recognized at the time of the sale or rendering of services. However, if at the time of rendering of services or sale there is significant uncertainty in ultimate collection of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately preceding the financial year in which such interest is credited or paid, shall be liable to deduct income-tax under this section. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, where any income by way of interest as aforesaid is credited to any account, whether called "Interest payable account" or "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly." 8. A plain reading of the said provision will indicate that tax deduction at source is permissible only if the income is credited to the account of the petitioner, in the instant case, in view of the freezing/attachment of the said FDs of petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is receiving income by way of interest from the said FDs for the present and entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner qua the said FDs or interest will have to be decided only after conclusion of the proceedings initiated by the CBI against the petitioner. In otherwords, for the present, the interest on the FDs w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest is credited is also, admittedly, not a person liable to pay tax under the Act. 19. The Registrar General of this Court is, clearly, not the recipient of the income represented by interest that accrues on the deposits made in his/her name. The Registrar General is also not an assessee in respect of the deposits made with the petitioner bank pursuant to the orders of this Court. The deposits kept with the petitioner bank under the orders of this Court are, essentially, funds which are custodia legis, that is, funds in the custody of this Court. The interest on that account - although credited in the name of the Registrar General - are also funds that remain under the custody of this Court. The credit of interest to such account is, thus, not a credit to an account of a person who is liable to be assessed to tax. In this view, the petitioner would have no obligation to deduct tax, because at the time of credit there is no person assessable in respect of that income which may be represented by the interest accrued/paid in respect of the deposits. The words "credit of such income to the account of the payee" occurring in Section 194A of the Act have to be ascribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver those funds. The amount deposited vests with the Court and the depositor ceases to exercise any dominion over those funds. It is also not necessary that the litigant who deposits the money would be the ultimate recipient of those funds. As indicated earlier, the person who is ultimately granted the funds would be determined by orders that may be passed subsequently. And at that stage, undisputedly, tax would be required to be deducted at source to the credit of the recipient. However, the litigant who deposits the funds cannot be stated to be the recipient of income for the reasons stated above. 23. Deducting tax in the name of the litigant who deposits the funds with this Court would also create another anomaly because the amount deducted would necessarily lie to his credit with the income tax authorities. In other words, the tax deducted at source would reflect as a tax paid by that litigant/depositor. He, thus, would be entitled to claim credit in his return of income. The implications of this are that whereas this Court had removed the funds from the custody of a litigant/depositor by judicial orders, a part of the accretion thereon is received by him by way of Tax deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t accruing on the said FDs shall a rise after conclusion of the said proceedings. iv. It is made clear that the present order passed will not affect any TDS already deducted by the respondent Nos.3 to 5/Banks prior to interim order dated 09.09.2019 passed by this Court." 7. Thus, as seen from the above order of the jurisdictional High Court on the issue of deduction of TDS u/s 194A of the Act, it has been held by Hon'ble Court that "the entitlement of interest accruing on the FDs to the assessee would be dependent on the result of the pending Court/CBI proceedings and consequently, till the conclusion of the said court proceedings, the interest accruing on the FD cannot be considered as income for the purpose of deduction of TDS u/s 194A of the Act and directed the bank not to deduct TDS on the interest of FDs. However, it cannot be treated as absolving the assessee of its liability to pay tax on the interest accruing on the FD if the petitioner becomes entitled to the same after conclusion of the court proceedings." It is also brought on record by assessee that first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A) Gulbarga/NFAC in assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 vide his order dated 15.7.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s & surpluses and there was no investment cost by way of interest. It was further contended that the investments in sister concerns are made for strategic purposes only and consequently, section 14A had no application. SURPLUS FUNDS. 9.2 He submitted that the learned AO has disallowed an amount of Rs. 62,19,040/- as expenditure related to exempt income applying section 14A r.w. Rule 8D without considering that the appellant had sufficient reserves & surpluses and there was no investment cost by way of interest. It was further contended that the investments in sister concerns are made for strategic purposes only and consequently, section 14A had no application. 9.3 He submitted that the learned AO has upheld the disallowance citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). It is submitted that the ground of the assessee, that the investments were made out of surplus funds, was not considered in proper perspective either by the learned AO or by the learned Appellate Commissioner. It is submitted that the working of the availability of surplus funds for the said investments was furnished before the learned AO as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous year, therefore, the ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w.s. 80D of the I.T. Rules. The ld. AO after considering the working of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act pointed out that while computing the disallowance, the investments in unquoted equity shares were not considered. Hence, the ld. AO redetermined the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 62,19,040/- and the same to be considered. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The main contention of the ld. A.R. is that the ld. AO while computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT. Rules has considered certain investments though it was not exempted income yielding investment. If there is any mistake on this count, same to be rectified by ld. AO while passing the fresh order on this issue. Further, the total disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D shall not exceed the exempted income earned by the assessee. This view of ours is fortified by the order of the Tribunal in the case of GMR Enterprises in ITA No.2310/Bang/2019 dated 28.10.2021 for the AY 2015-16 wherein held as under: "3.4 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the four assessment years in question. In the Table quoted in the beginning of the order, shows that the Assessee himself computed and offered the disallowance beyond the exempted income in the particular year, namely AY 2009-10, as against the dividend income of Rs. 41,042/- and the Assessee himself computed disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules to the extent of Rs. 2,38,575/- , which was increased to Rs. 98,16,104/- by the Assessing Authority. Similarly, for AY 2012-13, against Nil dividend income, the Assessee himself computed disallowance at Rs. 8,50,000/-, which was increased to Rs. 2,61,96,790/-. 21. We cannot approve even the larger disallowance proposed by the Assessee himself in the computation of disallowance under Rule 8D made by him. These facts are akin to the case of Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank(2018) 95 Taxman.com 41 (Kar.) decided by Karnataka High Court. The legal position, as interpreted above by various judgments and again reiterated by us in this judgment, remains that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income cannot exceed exempted income itself and neither the Assessee nor the Revenue are entitled to take a deviated view of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed for statistical purposes. 12. Next ground in ITA No.15/Bang/2019 in assessment year 2015-16 is with regard to computation of income u/s 115JB of the Act. 13. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Ground of appeal on this issue was not taken before the learned CIT(A), and it is a legal ground arising on the same set of facts already on record and therefore, the same may be considered and adjudicated on merits. He submitted that the learned AO has also computed the liability to tax under MAT i.e., Section 115JB by adding the above said additions/disallowances to the net loss of Rs. 1,98,61,008/-. The said amount of Rs. 10,32,94,857/- representing interest on the said fixed deposits, which are under the prohibitory order of the Court is also added to the MAT income, without appreciating that section 115JB is a self-contained code and no addition or reduction of items not expressly provided under the section itself is permissible. Reference is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. [2002] 122 Taxman 562 (SC) / [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC). 14. The ld. D.R. submitted that this ground was not at all before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
