9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. But, when it comes to allowing depreciation on any asset, said depreciation should be allowed on each year considering value of WDV of the asset. Just because the assessee has claimed depreciation for some years and enjoyed the benefit and later on reversed the claim and offered to tax at its convenience, the claim of the assessee cannot be entered. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is right in disallowing depreciation on land for this year. However, if the claim of the assessee is correct that, it has reversed depreciation on land for the assessment year 2012-13 and offered to tax, then the same can be excluded for computing total income. Thus, we direct the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and if the AO found that the claim of the assessee is correct, then we direct the AO to exclude the income offered towards reversal of depreciation while computing total income for the assessment year 2012-13. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - expenses incurred towards managerial remunerations and other routine administrative expenses - HELD THAT:- AO has recorded satisfaction having regard to books of accounts of the assessee that, the assessee has inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of fringe benefit, in so far as providing travel and conveyance expenses is concerned. CIT(A) has given appropriate relief as per law on the basis of relevant evidences filed by the assessee in so far as computation of value of fringe benefit on workmen and staff welfare expense. CIT(A) has given a direction to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of travel and conveyance expenses. Therefore, there is no error in the reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss appeal filed by the assessee. Income recognition - addition towards sale of farmer s security cards - as submitted assessee is following mercantile systems of accounting, income accrues only when the assessee sells the cards to farmers - HELD THAT:- As appellant s responsibility to offer income in right assessment year cannot be based on vague reason. Since, the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting, the moment it distributes cards to farmers, income from sale of cards accrues. The appellant has carried out distribution of cards in the assessment year 2007-08 and income pertaining to sale of said cards should be offered to tax for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancial creditor s decision. The assessee should independently carry out necessary exercise and ascertain whether call deposits and loans given to joint venture companies are NPA or not. Also as long as the loans is continued in the books of accounts, interest which is due on said loans on accrual basis must be brought to tax. AO, after considering relevant facts has rightly made additions towards interest income. Additions towards rent due to staff quarters amounting - Addition on the ground that although the assessee has specified in its notes of account, but did not offer rent due from staff quarters to tax - HELD THAT:- When the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting, income pertains to relevant assessment year has to be accounted on accrual basis, whether or not said income has been received during the relevant financial year. Since, the appellant has reported rent due from staff quarters for the ending 31.03.2008, in our considered view the AO has rightly made additions and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer and reject ground taken by the assessee. Addition towards revenue rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in light of our discussion given herein above and consider only those investments which yielded exempt income for the relevant assessment year for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules, 1962. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of Rs. 7,79,23,143/-, by making additions towards disallowance of depreciation on land for Rs. 2,80,850/-, addition towards disallowance of expenditure attributable to earning of exempt income u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.T. Rules), addition towards investment written off amounting to Rs. 1,99,48,306/- and addition towards interest due but not paid on land from Government of India for Rs. 34,20,817/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellant authority and the ld. CIT(A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 23.06.2017, partly allowed appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 2 & 3 of assessee appeal is disallowance of depreciation on the property at Nandanam. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that, the assessee is owned a land and building at MHU Complex, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai, on which depreciation has been claimed. The Assessing Officer, observed that as per the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, no depreciation can be allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land cost and added back to the total income. In so far as the arguments of the assessee that, the issue has been resolved with the Revenue and the said depreciation on the UDS in land has been reversed and offered to tax for the assessment year 2012-13, we are of the considered view that if the assessee has reversed depreciation and credited to profit and loss account, then same can be excluded while computing income for assessment year 2012-13. But, when it comes to allowing depreciation on any asset, said depreciation should be allowed on each year considering value of WDV of the asset. Just because the assessee has claimed depreciation for some years and enjoyed the benefit and later on reversed the claim and offered to tax at its convenience, the claim of the assessee cannot be entered. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is right in disallowing depreciation on land for this year. However, if the claim of the assessee is correct that, it has reversed depreciation on land for the assessment year 2012-13 and offered to tax, then the same can be excluded for computing total income. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction having regard to books of accounts of the assessee that, the assessee has incurred expenses towards managerial remunerations and other routine administrative expenses and a portion of which must have been attributed towards earning of exempt income. It is only after examining the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee incurred administrative and other expenses and said finding that, a portion of such expenses were attributed towards earning of substantial exempt income constitutes satisfaction as required u/s. 14A of the Act and thus, we reject arguments of the assessee. In so far as, disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A), in our considered view, although the provisions of Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 is not applicable for the impugned assessment year, but proportionate expenses relatable to income should be disallowed by applying certain methods. The ld. CIT(A), by following jurisdiction High Court decision in the case of M/s. Simpson and Co. Ltd in Tax case Appeal no. 2631 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nature of business loss and same needs to be allowed in terms of section 28 and 37(1) of the Act. 6.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in appellant's own case for assessment year 2001-02 in Tax Case Appeal No. 1499/2008, where the Hon'ble High Court considering the objects of the appellant company held that, finance provided by the assessee was by way of equity participation is akin to loan transactions or advances made and in such case, if the loans are irrecoverable, then they are written off and precisely, that is what has been done by the assessee on their investment and thus, said loss is allowable. 6.3. The ld. DR, Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee held investment in other companies not as a stock in trade. When the value of investments is depleted, same partakes the nature of capital loss which cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, he fairly conceded that, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en advanced by them are shown as equity and without the permission of the assessee, the share holding pattern of the companies cannot be changed and the promoters will have to keep minimum interest in the companies' assets and transfer of shares without the consent of the assessee cannot be made. 11. On this issue, it would be beneficial to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Investments Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1970) 77 ITR 0533, wherein, the Court considered as to whether the shares and securities held by the assessee therein has to be treated as stock-in-trade and while considering the said question, it was held as follows:- 8. In the balance sheet, it is true, the securities and shares are valued at cost, but no firm conclusion can be drawn from the method of keeping accounts. A taxpayer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts, and for that purpose to value his stock-in- trade either at cost or market price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the Departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d supra) can render no assistance to the case of the Revenue. 14. Furthermore, we find that the CIT(A) relied upon the decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) and in the said decision also, the investments made by the TIDCO was in the form of equity shares including share application deposit and the profit made on the sale of shares was held to be in the nature of business profit and not as long term capital gains. Further, the loss on investments was treated as bad debts and claims were written off as business expenditure which goes to show that the investments on such shares are in the course of primary business activities of the company. In the case of TIDCO, the CIT(A) relied upon a decision of the ITAT, Chennai B Bench in the case of M/s.V.D.Swami and Company Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No.2592/MDS/95. As pointed out by us earlier, the objects for which the assessee company had been established by the Government of Tamil Nadu is no different from the purpose for which TIIC and TIDCO were established. Therefore, the CIT(A) was fully justified in relying upon the decision in the case of TIDCO. The Tribunal relied on a decision in the case of R.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) erred in not considering the issue of double taxation in the event of sustenance of the addition of Rs. 6,77,926/- being the fringe benefit quantified from the expenses charged under the head 'selling and administrative expenses' without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law. 6. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/argument at the time of hearing." 9. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 25.11.2006, admitting value of Fringe Benefit at Rs. 9,85,578/-. The Assessing Officer, has completed the assessment u/s. 115WE(3) of the Act, by assessing the value of fringe benefit at Rs. 15,91,730/- after making additions of Rs. 6,06,150/- being 20% of workmen and staff welfare expenses at Rs. 30,30,749/- and addition of Rs. 6,77,926/- being 20% of travelling expenses of Rs. 33,89,631/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellant authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23,95,812/- to prove that, it has spent for the welfare of the employees to provide refreshment facilities at work place. Therefore, we cannot find any fault with the reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) so sustain the balance addition of Rs. 23,95,812/- for the purpose of computing the value of fringe benefit. In so far as the value of fringe benefit in respect of travelling and conveyance expenses, the ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding to the Assessing Officer in light of arguments of the assessee that, said expenditure has already been considered in the return of income filed under Fringe Benefit. The ld. CIT(A), further stated that the Assessing Officer must carefully verify whether the assessee has spent said amount for providing travel and conveyance expenses and if so, the same must be excluded while working out the value of fringe benefit. The ld. CIT(A), has also given directions to the Assessing Officer to consider appropriate rate for computing the value of fringe benefit. In our considered view, there is no cause of grievance with the appellant, when there is a clear finding from the ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the matter may be re-examined in light of averments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons and justification. 6. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law. 7. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing." 12. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 2 of assessee appeal is addition towards sale of farmer's security cards. The facts with regard to impugned dispute are that, as per director's report forming part of the annual accounts, the assessee company had successfully carried out printing of 70 lakhs farmer's security cards using electronic process systems. It was further noted that, in the audit report there was qualification that the company has not recognized income on the sale of farmer's security cards. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why income from sale of farmer's security cards cannot be assessed. In response, the assessee submitted that although the farmer's security card was printed and successfully carried out in the assessment year 2007-08, but the rate for said cards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after considering relevant facts has rightly made additions and their order should be upheld. 12.3 We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that, the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting. It is also an admitted fact that as per director report, the assessee has successfully carried out printing and distribution of farmer's security cards for the assessment year 2007-08. Even, the auditor has issued a qualified audit report and said in their report that, the appellant has not recognized income pertaining to sale of farmer's security cards. The reasons given by the assessee for not recognizing income for the impugned assessment year is that, Government of Tamilnadu has not fixed selling rate of card. In our considered view the appellant's responsibility to offer income in right assessment year cannot be based on vague reason. Since, the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting, the moment it distributes cards to farmers, income from sale of cards accrues. The appellant has carried out distribution of cards in the assessment year 2007-08 and income per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to look into the issue, in light of arguments of the assessee as per second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13.3. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made additions towards disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on the basis of tax audit report, where the tax auditor specified disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, towards certain expenditure for non deduction of tax at source under Chapter XVII-B of the Act. The assessee claims that, the Assessing Officer has not given proper opportunity to explain its case in light of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We find that as per second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which came into statue by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, if assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then for the purposes of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the payee referred to in the said provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (Appeals) erred in partly sustaining the notional disallowance of expenses based on the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the legal issues brought out for the consideration in the proceedings before him in writing were completely overlooked and brushed aside, thereby vitiating the findings in para 11.3 of the impugned order. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 10,98,850/- being the interest on accrual basis relating to call deposits and term loan advances in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification and went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 11.4 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment of rental income of Rs. 15,600/- in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not arise. 18.1 We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Although, the appellant claims that call deposits and loans given to joint venture companies become NPA, the reasons given by the appellant to treat said loans and call deposits as NPA is not acceptable. The assessee cannot treat call deposits and loan given to joint venture companies as NPA on the basis of financial creditor's decision. The assessee should independently carry out necessary exercise and ascertain whether call deposits and loans given to joint venture companies are NPA or not. Further, as long as the loans is continued in the books of accounts, interest which is due on said loans on accrual basis must be brought to tax. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant facts has rightly made additions towards interest income. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. 19. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 5 of assessee appeal is additions towards rent due to staff quarters amounting to Rs. 15,600/-. The Assessing Officer has made add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the reasons given for equating perpetual/long lease as sale were wholly unjustified and ought to have appreciated that the legal issues canvassed in this regard were completely overlooked in the process of confirming an addition of Rs. 1,14,75,000. 6. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on the property at Nandanam in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 7. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 12.4 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the adjustment of depreciation in the book profit computation for the reasons stated in para 12.5 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law. 10. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing." 22. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verride all other provisions of the Act including the Income-tax Act, 1961. The model followed by the assessee for reckoning of revenue should be accepted. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee received land lease deposit upfront. As per the terms of lease agreement between the appellant company and allottees, 85% land deposit is non-refundable and only 15% is refundable after the expiry of lease period. Further, in case the lease period is terminated for any violation referred in agreement with the parties, then the appellant can deduct 5% of lease deposit for every year the land held by the lessee in possession of the land subject to maximum of 85%. Since, the appellant has received land lease deposit and handed over the possession of the land upon entering into lease agreement with the allottees, the revenue towards lease deposit accrues to the assessee as and when the assessee receives the amount. The Assessing Officer, had also took support from the case of M/s. SIPCOT, another State Government undertaking engaged in similar business, where the entire income received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 the appellant has recognized the revenue over the period of 17 years and thus, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are erred in making additions towards land lease deposit for the year in which said deposit has been received by the assessee. 22.3 The ld. DR, Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT, on the other hand supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, going by the terms and conditions of lease agreement between the appellant company and the allottees, it is undisputedly clear that the appellant company collects land lease deposit at the time of allotment of land and also fixes yearly lease rent, which is very minimal. Further, the appellant company had also collected development and maintenance charges separately. From the above, it is very clear that upfront deposit collected by the assessee is nothing but consideration received for transfer and possession of land to the allottees. The ld. DR, further referring to the provisions of section 269UA(f) of the Act submitted that, transfer in relation to immovable property means transfer of such property by way of sale or exchange or lease for a term of not less than 12 years and includes allowing of possession of such pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of 90/99 years and also handed over the possession of the land to the allottees along with right, title and interest in the said property. Since, the lease period is over and above 12 years, as per provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 it is nothing but a transfer. Thus, land lease deposit received by the appellant should be considered as consideration for transfer of land. Therefore, in our considered view, when the appellant has received upfront land lease deposit on allotment, said land lease deposit partakes the nature of consideration for transfer of land and thus, the assessee ought to have recognized consideration received for allotment of land as income on accrual basis/receipt basis, as and when such amount was received on allotment of land, subject to the conditions prescribed in the lease agreement. In the present case, out of total land lease deposit received by the appellant from the allottees, 15% is refundable after expiry of lease period. Therefore, land lease deposit received by the appellant to the extent of 15% cannot be considered as income of the assessee. In so far as balance 85% of lease deposit, the appellant collects said lease deposit at the time of allotme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration which needs to be recognized as income in the year of receipt. 22.6 Coming back to another argument of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to certain clauses of lease deed submitted that the Assessing Officer even taxed 15% refundable land lease deposit. We find that as per the terms of agreement between the assessee and allottes, 15% of land lease deposit is refundable after expiry of lease period. Therefore, deposit received by the appellant to the extent of 15% cannot be treated as consideration received for transfer of property and further, said amount is refundable to the allottees after expiry of lease period. Therefore, in our considered view the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are erred in taxing refundable land lease deposit even though the agreement between the parties clearly specifies 15% of land lease deposit is refundable. Thus, we direct the AO to exclude 15% refundable deposit from the ambit of income. As regards another argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee in light of certain clauses of the agreement that in case of premature termination of lease agreement for any reasons, the appellant requires to refund land lease deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant for transfer of land along with title, right and interest for long term lease of 90/99 years to the extent of non-refundable deposit should be considered as income as and when the income accrues to the assessee. Since, the appellant has received upfront lease deposit, when the land has been leased out, in our considered view, the appellant ought to have recognized the income in the profit and loss account in the year of receipt. Since, the appellant has not recognized the income even though said income accrues to the appellant in the relevant assessment years, in our considered view, the AO has rightly taxed lease land deposit on accrual basis and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reject grounds taken by the assessee. 23. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 6 & 7 of assessee appeal is depreciation on land. This is a recurring issue. The Assessing Officer has made additions towards disallowance of depreciation on land for earlier assessment years. We have considered a similar issue for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 2432/Chny/2017 and after considering relevant facts, we held that the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. 25. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 2 & 3 of assessee appeal is disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 towards expenditure relatable to earning exempt income. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the appellant has earned dividend income and claimed exemption u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The appellant has not debited any expenditure for earning exempt income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer invoked provisions of Rules 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 and computed disallowance of Rs. 13,17,280/- @ 0.5% on average value of investment. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer. 25.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has made only one argument in light of the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.502/Del/2012 & CO No.68/Del/2014, reported in 165 ITD 27 and submitted that for the purpose of computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules, 1962 only those investment which yielded exempt in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the legal issues brought out for the consideration in the proceedings before him in writing were completely overlooked and brushed aside, thereby vitiating the findings from para 13.3 of the impugned order. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the revenue recognition attempted by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making addition relating to long term land lease for which deposits were received by the appellant from para 12.2.4 to 12.2.6 read with para 13.2 without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reasons given for equating perpetual/long lease as sale were wholly unjustified and ought to have appreciated that the legal issues canvassed in this regard were completely overlooked in the process of confirming an addition of Rs. 14,88,58,800/-. 6. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of otional expenses quantified as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the book profit computation for the reasons stated in para 13.4 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 7. The CIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No: 2437/Chny/2017 for assessment year 2013-14: 32. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai dated 26.07.2017 in I.T.A.No.80/CIT(A)-9/2016-17 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in partly sustaining the notional disallowance of expenses based on the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the legal issues brought out for the consideration in the proceedings before him in writing were completely overlooked and brushed aside, thereby vitiating the findings from para 14 of the impugned order. 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the revenue recognition attempted by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making addition relating to long term land lease for which deposits were received by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
