9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed as not pressed. 3. In ground nos. 2.1 and 2.2, the dispute relates to disallowance of an amount of Rs. 68,22,862/-, u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute, originally, the assessee filed its return of income on 15.02.2021. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2021, declaring loss, both under the head 'business' as well as 'capital gain'. 5. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that, in the year under consideration, the assessee had received exempt income, by way of dividend, amounting to Rs. 4,58,77,493/-. Whereas, the assessee has not made any suo motu disallowance of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing balance. He submitted, the average value of the investment as per opening and closing balance, would work out to Rs. 66,11,81,530/- and 1% of such amount, would work out to Rs. 66,11,815/-, as against the amount of Rs. 68,22,862/-, disallowed by the A.O. Thus, in sum and substance, he submitted that the disallowance should be restricted to Rs. 66,11,815/-. The ld. Counsel submitted, that investments made on two companies, viz. Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. ('AISATS') and Cochin International Airport Ltd. ('CIAL'), have yielded exempt income. He submitted, even the A.O. has accepted the afore-said factual position. To demonstrate the aforesaid fact, ld. Counsel drew our attention to the decision of the co-ordinate bench in as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of depreciation claimed, amounting to Rs. 1,27,15,826/-. Briefly, the facts are, in the return of income filed for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had claimed depreciation for a lesser amount. Subsequently, when this fact came to the notice of the assessee, it filed a revised return of income in course of assessment proceedings claiming excess depreciation of Rs. 1,27,15,826/-. While completing the assessment, the A.O. did not take cognizance of the revised return of income. The assessee contested the issue before learned first appellate authority. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 157 Taxman 1 (SC), learned first appellate authority upheld the disallowance, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the said revised return was not filed within the prescribed time limit, the A.O. did not entertain the claim. Whereas, learned first appellate authority upheld the disallowance of revised claim, since, it was not made through a valid revised return of income. While doing so, he has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). In our view, though, as per the ratio laid down in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), the A.O. can entertain a revised claim, if it is made through a valid revised return of income, however, such restriction imposed on the A.O., does not apply to the appellate authorities. This has been clearly propounded by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
