Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Consolidated Appeals (10)
आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee and the Revenue against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Ahmedabad, involving the respective Assessment Years.
First we take up the appeal preferred by the assessee bearing ITA No/131/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 for the purpose of adjudication.
The assessee has raised as many as four grounds of appeal but the issue revolves to the amount of Rs. 44,26,707/- representing the expenditure disallowed by the AO which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) under the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income Tax Rule.
The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a limited company and engaged in the business of printing and publishing newspaper. The assessee in the year under consideration has earned dividend income of Rs. 5,14,38,645/- and other tax free income of Rs. 3,814/- only which were claimed as exempted u/s 10 of the Act. The assessee against such exempted income has made the disallowance of Rs. 11,98,579/- under the provision of section 14A of the Act.
3.1 However the AO was of the view that the disallowance needs to be made u/s 14A of the Act as per the formula provided under Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, the AO worked out the amount of disallowance under Rule 8D as detailed under: Sr.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Direct Expenses Nil 2. Interest Expenses 79,774/- 3. Administrative Expenses 56,25,286/- Rs.57,05,060/-
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 4
3.2 Thus the AO made the disallowance of Rs. 45,06,481/- after reducing the amount already disallowed by the assessee for Rs. 11,98,579/- and added to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO with respect to interest disallowance of Rs.79,774/- by observing that the amount of interest income shown by the assessee exceeds the amount of interest expenses and therefore there cannot be any disallowance qua the interest expenses under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income Tax Rules in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs Nirma Credit and Capital reported in 82 taxmann.com72.
4.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) was pleased to confirm the disallowance on account of administrative expenses on the reasoning that ITAT in the own case of the assessee has made the disallowance of such expenses in ITA bearing No. 1510/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us.
The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 44,26,707/- whereas the Revenue is in appeal for the amount deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) for Rs.79,774/- in ITA No. 307/Ahd/2017. The relevant ground of appeal of the Revenue reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.79,774/- u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has large capital, ignoring the fact that the funds of the assessee were mixed. 7. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 57 and contended that the disallowance has been made without recording the dissatisfaction about correctness of claim after having regard to the books of
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 5
accounts of the assessee as mandated under the provision of 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules.
It was also contended that the facts of the case as narrated by the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 are distinguishable from the present facts of the case. It was submitted that there was no disallowance made by the assessee against the exempted income in that AY whereas in the case on hand the assessee has suo moto made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,98,579/- only.
The Ld. AR in support of his contentions drew our attention on pages 27 and 37 of paper book where the disallowance under section 14A for Rs. 11,98,579.00 was made. Accordingly it was contended that it was the duty of the AO to point out the defect in the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee in its computation of income before resorting to Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules.
However, the Ld. DR in contended that the AO has rejected the disallowance made by the assessee which is discernible from the assessment order. Thus it is implied that the AO has recorded the satisfaction as required under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income Tax Rule.
Both the Ld. AR and DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the instant case relates to the disallowances made by the AO under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown the amount of exempted income amounting to Rs. 5,14,42,459.00 only. But the assessee claimed that it has not incurred any expenditure against such income either in the form of
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 6
interest or administrative expenses. However the assessee, to avoid the litigation with the Department has suo-moto made the disallowance of Rs. 11,98,579/- only.
12.1 However, the AO without rejecting the disallowance made by the assessee suo-moto based on cogent reasons has invoked the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D and made the disallowance of Rs. 45,06,481/- only.
12.2 Now the controversy arises, whether the AO can resort to the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D without rejecting the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the provisions of section 14A of the Act requires that the AO has to record the satisfaction after having regard to the accounts of the assessee as well as correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in connection with the exempted income. Admittedly, there was the disallowance made by the assessee for Rs. 11,98,579/- against the exempted income. But the AO has not pointed out any defect in the disallowance made by the assessee. Thus in our considered view such act of the AO is in violation of the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. As such, the AO was under the obligation to record the dissatisfaction about the correctness of the claim of the assessee.
12.3 In this regard, we find support and guidance from the order of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT v/s Pidilite Industries Ltd. reported in 107 Taxmann.com 91 wherein it was held that the AO has to form an opinion as to why the disallowance offered by the assessee, having regards to its accounts, was not satisfactory or correct. The aforesaid satisfaction of the AO is sine-qua-non, before acquiring jurisdiction under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. The relevant headnotes of the order is reproduced hereunder: “Where assessee declared tax exempt income and offered suo-moto disallowance of certain expenditure under section 14A, since Assessing Officer did not specify any cause of dissatisfaction with assessee's working of disallowance under section 14A, Assessing Officer was not justified in recomputing disallowance.”
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 7
12.4 In view of the above, we are not convinced with the order of the ld. CIT-A and thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Now coming to ITA No. 307/AHD/2018 for AY 2011-12, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,91,30,449/- on business development expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.79,774/- u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has large capital, ignoring the fact that the funds of the assessee were mixed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent.
The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 4,91,30,449/- on account of business development expenditure.
The assessee in the year under consideration claimed that it has launched various scheme in order to retain its customer base which was getting affected by the opponent namely Divya Basker. The details of the scheme stands as under:
Sr.No. Name of Scheme/Narration Amount 1. Business promotion-(Happy Rs.2436832.00 Holi) 2. Business Promotion-(Summer Rs.7733552.14 2010) 3. Business Promotion-(Rimzim Rs.7517165.00 Gire Savan)
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 8
Business Promotion- Rs.7968183.79 (Jayranchhodmakhanchor) 5. Business Promotion-(Dipostavi Rs.8262596.62 Rang) 6. Business Promotion-(Chali Rs.8501635.50 Chali Re Patang) 7. Business Promotion-(Holi Avi Rs.2826967.00 Rango Lavai) 8. Business Development Rs.2623628.00 expenses 9. Business development Rs.1259889.00 expense-SUBS Scheme TOTAL Rs.49130449/-
Similar kinds of schemes, discussed above, were launched by its opponent namely Divya basker and therefore to compete the opponent the scheme were launched by the assessee.
The assessee also submitted that The ITAT in the earlier order has allowed the deduction of such expenditure by holding that these expenditures were incurred in the course of business.
18.1 However, the AO found that the order of the ITAT has been challenged before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court which is pending for adjudication and therefore he was of the view that the issue on hand has not reached to its finality. Therefore, he disallowed the sum of Rs. 4,91,30,499/- and added to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:
DECISION; 6.2 I have carefully considered Assessment Order and submission filed by the Appellant. The AO has observed that Appellant has debited business development expenditure of Rs.4,91,30,4497- and following the past records made disallowance of the same. The AO himself has observed that though the ITAT has deleted the addition, however, the Department has not accepted the decision of ITAT and has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, hence addition is made. On the other hand, Appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT In its own case for the A.Y. 2005-06 to 2009-10 wherein similar disallowance was deleted.
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 9
On careful consideration of the above facts, it is observed that Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in Appellant's own case for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2009-10 in ITA No.637-639/Ahd/2011 and others, has deleted the addition made by AO and held as under: - '5. The Id. AO has disallowed the business development expenses and treated them as capital expenditure for following Asst. Years:- Asst. Year Amount 2005-06 25,96,09,700/- 2006-07 22,25,22,761/- 2007-08 19,56,96,676/- 2008-09 19,32,98,364/- 2009-10 9,89,60,372/- 6. The Id. DR supported the orders of Assessing Officer. 7. At the outset Id. AR of the assessee submitted that similar grounds relating to business development expenditure being business expenses and not capital expenditure had been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.479/Ahd/2005 for Asst. Year 2001-02 and others, vide order dated 19.11.2010. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the issue relating to business development expenses to be treated as business expenditure and not capital expenditure, has been dealt and decided by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No.479/Ahd/2005 for Asst. Year 2001-02 and others, vide order dated 19.11.2010, by observing as under:-
Asst. Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & others "11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. We find that the assesses has claimed business development expenses as under - A.Y. Amount 2001-02 64,22,000 2002-03 53,67,735 2003-04 56,79,197
The AO disallowed the above expenditure by treating the same as gratuitous payment in the A.Y. 2001-02, capital expenditure in the A.Y. 2002-03, and both gratuitous and capital expenditure in A.Y. 2003-04. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the additions in all the 3 years under consideration. We find that the assesses explained before the AO that it has launched a scheme for development of its newspaper style as "Lavajam scheme". Under this scheme, the subscribers who paid advance subscription for the whole year were given gifts by the assesses. The expenditure in question relates to such gins or benefit given to the subscriber. The assesses submitted before the AO that the above expenditure was incurred for business purposes. The AO did not accept the assessee's submission by holding that the assessee was not obliged to make such payments to the subscribers and therefore, the payments were gratuitous and not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. The AO also observed in A. Y. 2002- 03 that the payments under this head results in the benefit to the assessee not only during the year under consideration but also in the subsequent years and therefore, treated the expenditure as capital in nature. In the A.Y. 2003-04, the AO has mentioned both the reasons i.e. gratuitous as well as capital in nature. We find that genuineness of payments was not disputed by the AO in all the 3 years under consideration. The
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 10
only dispute was regarding the nature of expenditure as to whether capital or revenue and whether the expenditure was incurred out of commercial expediency or not. It is not in dispute that by incurring the expenditure under consideration, the assessee has not acquired any new capital asset. Thus, in our considered view, the contention of the revenue that the expenditure incurred was capital in nature, is wholly unsustainable. Only because an expenditure may result in some benefit in the unspecified subsequent period, does not make the revenue expenditure as capital expenditure. The other reason given by the AO that there is no direct co- relation between the amount of expenditure end number of subscribers, is also irrelevant for deciding the nature of expenditure or the allowability of the expenditure. For an expenditure being allowable, it is not necessary that the expenditure must have yielded immediate or quantifiable benefit to the assessee. In respect of the other argument of the revenue that expenditure was incurred gratuitously and not exclusively for the purposes of business, we find that it is not in dispute that the expenditure was incurred for giving benefit or gift to the subscribers of daily newspaper who paid the entire subscription of the year in advance. Thus, we find that the expenditure had a close nexus with the business of the asssssee. No material was brought on record by the revenue to show that the expenditure in question was incurred for any other purpose except business consideration by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the recipients Asst. Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & others of benefit were relatives of the assessee. Further, in our considered view, a business expenditure for being deductible, it is not necessary that the same must have been incurred under some compulsion. Voluntary expenditures incurred out of commercial expediency are also fully deductible under the Income Tax Act. We therefore find that the orders of the AO in making disallowance for the reason mentioned in the orders are not sustainable for all the 3 years under consideration. As the genuineness of expenditures under present appeals are not in dispute and no further investigation of any fact is required to be made for deciding the issue under consideration, in our considered opinion, on the facts involved in the years under appeal restoration of issue will not be justified and therefore, the plea of the department to this effect cannot be accepted. We therefore, confirm the orders of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue, in all the 3 years under consideration. 9. From going through the decision of the co-ordinate bench we find that the issue involved in these appeals is similar to the issue decided by the co-ordinate bench. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co- ordinate bench in the above case, we confirm the order of Id. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeals of Revenue in all the five assessment years. 6.2.2 As the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of preceding year, the disallowance made by AO for Rs.4,91,30,449/- on account of business development expenses is deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us.
Both the Ld. DR and AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them.
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 11
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we note that the ITAT in the own case of the assessee bearing ITA No. 2863/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 10/11/2016 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: We now come to Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2863/Ahd/2013. Its first substantive ground challenges the CIT(A)’s order deleting business development expenditure disallowance of Rs.3,12,91,284/- as made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order by treating the same to be capital expenditure. Both the ld.Representatives are ad idem that this tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for AYs 2005-06 to 2009-10(supra) follows yet another decision in its case pertaining to AY 2001-02 holding identical business development expenditure to be Revenue in nature. Ld.Departmental Representative fails to point out any distinction on the conclusion under challenge. The Revenue fails in its first substantive ground.
22.1 Respectfully following the same, we don’t find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT-A. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue.
The 2nd issue raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT-A erred in deletion the addition made by the AO for Rs. 79,774.00 representing the interest expenditure under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income Tax Rule.
23.1 At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has already been dismissed by us along with the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 131/AHD/2018 for the AY 2011-12. For the detailed discussion, please refer the relevant Paragraph No. 12 of this order. Thus we dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 12
Now coming the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.132/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2012-13.
The assessee has raised as many as four grounds of appeal but the issue 25. revolves to the amount of Rs. 71,41,936/- representing the expenditure disallowed by the AO which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
At the outset we note that similar ground was raised by the assessee in his own case bearing ITA No.131/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which has been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No.12 of this order. For the detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No.131/Rjt/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Coming to the appeal of the Revenue bearing ITA No.308/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13
The Revenue has raised the followings grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,93,50,365/- on business development expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.7,61,855/- u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has large capital, ignoring the fact that the funds of the assessee were mixed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent. 29. At the outset we note that similar grounds 1 and 2 were raised by the Revenue in ITA bearing No. 307/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 13
has been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No. 12 & 22 of this order. For the detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No. 307/Ahd/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Now coming the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 133/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2013-14.
The assessee has raised as many as four grounds of appeal but the issue 31. revolves to the amount of Rs. 1,08,90,377/- representing the expenditure disallowed by the AO which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).
At the outset we note that similar ground was raised by the assessee in his own case bearing ITA No. 131/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which has been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No. 12 of this order. For the detailed discussion, please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraph with regard to ITA No. 131/Rjt/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Coming to the appeal of the Revenue bearing ITA No. 309/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14.
The Revenue has raised the followings grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,65,56,208/- on business development expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.23,51,043/- u/s.14A of the Act on the ground
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 14
that the assessee has large capital, ignoring the fact that the funds of the assessee were mixed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent. 35. At the outset we note that similar grounds 1 and 2 were raised by the Revenue in ITA bearing No.307/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which has been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No. 12 & 22 of this order. For the detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph numbers of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No.307/Ahd/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Now coming the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.178/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15.
The assessee has raised as many as four grounds of appeal but the issue revolves to the amount of Rs.1,28,52,930/- representing the expenditure disallowed by the AO which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).
At the outset we note that similar ground was raised by the assessee in his own case bearing ITA No. 131/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which has been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No. 12 of this order. For the detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No. 131/Rjt/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 15
Coming to the appeal of the Revenue bearing ITA No.310/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,58,38,359/- on business development expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.15,28,905/- u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has large capital, ignoring the fact that the funds of the assessee were mixed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent. 41. At the outset we note that similar grounds 1 and 2 were raised by the Revenue bearing ITA No. 307/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which has been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No. 12 & 22 of this order. For the detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph numbers of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No.307/Ahd/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Now coming the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.741/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16.
The issue raised by the assessee is that Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming 43. disallowance of Rs. 1,26,63,477/- made by the made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act.
At the outset we note that similar ground was raised by the assessee in his own case bearing ITA No.131/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which has
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 16
been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No. 12 of this order. For the detailed discussion, please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No.131/Rjt/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Coming to the appeal of the Revenue bearing ITA No. 1143/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,35,49,585/- on business development expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,335/- u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has large capital, ignoring the fact that the funds of the assessee were mixed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent.
At the outset we note that similar ground nos. 1 and 2 were raised by the Revenue in ITA bearing No. 307/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2011-12 which has been decided in favour of assessee vide paragraph No. 12 & 22 of this order. For the detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly, we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No. 307/Ahd/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also.
In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed.
ITA nos.131/Ahd/2018 & 9 others Asstt. Years 2011-12 & others 17
In the combined results, appeals of the Assessee are allowed whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 27/07/2021 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 27/07/2021 Manish