9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in proviso to Rule 8D(2)(ii) wherein, it is referred that the amount referred to in clause 1 and clause 2 would not exceed to total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO will find out the expenditure claimed by the assessee in terms of above and then will re-decide the issue. Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and order of the CIT(A) and that of AO is set aside. Disallowing additional ground raised by the assessee during the course of first appeal - not considering that the income pertaining to the concessional fee received from AAICLAS Co. Ltd has already offered for taxation in AY 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- As both the sides and going through the facts of the case, notice that the income as claimed by the assessee which is already offered for taxation in AY, needs verification. Before us, assessee could not explain how this income of Rs. 102.88 is included in this income of Rs. 232.67 offered in AY 2018-19. At one point of time, the ld counsel made submission that part income falls in AY 2018-19 and part falls in AY 2019-20. The entire controversy raised by assessee seems plausible and there should not be double taxation of an income. There is no imped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was received from GHAIL and the same has been claimed as exempt income. It was claimed that as per policy laid down by the Government of India and directions of Civil Aviation Ministry, joint venture investment has been made for operations of various airports in the country. Therefore, such trade investment in joint venture amounting to Rs. 1715.47 crores was made. It was pleaded that the assessee has interest free fund in the form share capital of Rs. 656.56 crores and reserve and surplus of Rs. 14,270.06 crores aggregate to Rs. 14,926.62 crores. It was claimed that the investment in shares is just Rs. 1715.47 crores. Assessee claimed before AO, that, since the investment have been made from own funds, no disallowance is called for u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. The AO not agreeing with the submissions of the assessee, invoked the formula under 8D(2)(ii) of the rules and made disallowance @1% average value of investment of Rs. 17,15,47,000/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the decision in AY 2012-13 and other years in assessee's own case, deleted the disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment. In terms of above, we set aside the order CIT(A) on this issue and remand the issue back to the file of the ld AO in the following terms:- i. that the AO will find out the investment which gives rise to exempt income. ii. then the AO will re-compute the disallowance by taking those investment which give rise to exempt income @1% on average value of investment. iii. the AO will also verify the expenditure as described in proviso to Rule 8D(2)(ii) wherein, it is referred that the amount referred to in clause 1 and clause 2 would not exceed to total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO will find out the expenditure claimed by the assessee in terms of above and then will re-decide the issue. 7. Therefore, in terms of above, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and order of the CIT(A) and that of AO is set aside. ITA No. 830/Del/2023 - Assessee's appeal 8. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the order of the CIT(A) in not allowing additional ground raised by the assessee during the course of first appeal and thereby not considering that the income of Rs. 1,02,88,14,859/- pertaining to the concessional fee recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case Ld Assessing Officer should have on its own excluded to consider income of Rs 102,88,14,859/- which pertains to AY 2018-19. The lapse has resulted double taxation of Rs 102,88,14,859/- in current year. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal." 12. Ld counsel for the assessee before us pointed out from the order of the CIT(A), wherein, audited financial statement of the assessee are reproduced with miscellaneous income that includes concessional fee received from AAICLAS Co Ltd is declared at Rs. 232,67,28,047/-. The ld counsel for the assessee before us stated that the assessee has already offered part of the income of Rs. 1,02,88,14,859/- which pertains to AY 2019-20, which is already offered for taxation in AY 2018-19. Before us, he stated that part belongs to AY 2018-19 and part belongs to 2019-20 but he could not submit bifurcation of the same. He also stated that the CIT(A) simply confirmed the action of the AO by stating that the AO has no power to entertain fresh claim made by the assessee after filing the original return of income other than by filing the revised return. He also relied on the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
