ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 20/MUM/2021Status: HeardITAT Mumbai05 January 2022AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to dispose of the omitted Ground No. 2. The Tribunal acknowledged that it had inadvertently failed to adjudicate this ground, which was a mistake apparent on record. The miscellaneous application was allowed to the extent of recalling the appeal for this purpose.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a miscellaneous application stating that Ground No. 2 of the revenue's appeal was not adjudicated in the original order. This ground pertained to the CIT(A) treating certain interest income as business income. The revenue had also raised a similar ground for a prior assessment year which was dismissed due to low tax effect.

What were the issues?

Whether certain interest income was correctly treated as business income by the CIT(A) and if the Tribunal inadvertently omitted to adjudicate this issue in its previous order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Hearing: 04.06.2021Pronounced: 05.01.2022
1.

Through this miscellaneous application assessee states that Ground No. 2 of grounds of appeal of the revenue in appeal No. 2509/MUM/2012 is not adjudicated. It was also further stated that identical ground has been raised by the revenue for the A.Y.2007-08 and the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on account of low tax effect.

2 MA.No. 20/MUM/2021 M/s. Trent Limited 2. Therefore, it is stated that the Tribunal may recall the appeal of the revenue to dispose off Ground No. 2, which was omitted to dispose off while passing the order dated 15.07.2020, as it is a mistake apparent on record.

3.

Ld. DR has no objection in recalling the order of the Tribunal to dispose off Ground No.2 of ground of appeal of the revenue for the A.Y.2008-09.

4. On hearing both sides and perusing order of the Tribunal it is noticed that the Tribunal inadvertently omitted to dispose off following Ground No.2 of the revenues’ appeal in ITA No. 2509/MUM/2012. “Ground No.2. - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating interest on margin money, interest on loans to employees, interest on day to day balance with bank in current account, interest on blocked money and interest income on margin money / FDR as business income without appreciating the fact that the same were not immediately linked to the business of the assessee.”

5.

It is observed from the order of the Tribunal that only Ground No.1 raised by the revenue challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules was disposed off. Therefore, it is a mistake apparent on record in not disposing off the above Ground No.2 of ground of appeal of the revenue in ITA No.

3 MA.No. 20/MUM/2021 M/s. Trent Limited 2509/MUM/2012. To rectify the mistake apparent on record, we recall the appeal of the revenue in dated 15.07.2020 for the limited purpose of disposing off the above Ground No.2 of grounds of revenue.

6.

In the result miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed to the extant indicated above.

Order pronounced on 05.01.2022 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →