Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SH. KULDIP SINGH
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
by the revenue preferred against two separate orders of the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 11.05.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2009-10 and 2011-12.1.
Since common grounds are involved in both these appeals, though, quantum may differ, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order and brevity.
The grievance of the revenue in A.Y. 2009-10 read as under :-
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in holding that no interest
bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt income and thus restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A to Rs.35,78,530/- against the disallowance of Rs.2,51,751/- made by the AO in accordance with the provisions of Rule
8D of the Income Tax Rules.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that excise duty
refund of Rs.2,46,79,790/- is eligible for deduction u/s. 80 IB.
The grievance of the revenue in A.Y. 2011-12 read as under :-
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in holding that no interest
bearing funds were used by the assessee in making investment giving rise to tax exempt income and thus restricting the disallowance u/s. 14 A to Rs.82,66,124/- against the disallowance of Rs.1,06,79,240/- made by the AO in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that excise duty refund of Rs.2,80,82,949/- is eligible for deduction u/s. 80 IB.
At the very outset the counsel for the assessee stated that identical issues were considered by the Tribunal in 92/Del/2012, 144/Del/2013, 475/Del/2013, 4426/Del/2013 and 4986/Del/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the order of the Tribunal was followed in ITA No.6963/Del/2014 and 556/Del/2014 for A.Y.2011-12 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The DR fairly conceded to this.
We have carefully considered the grievance of the revenue viz-a-viz the order of the Coordinate Bench (supra). We find force in the contention of the counsel. Grievance raised vide ground No.1 which is in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A, we find that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in vide ground No.2 of that appeal and grievance raised vide ground No.2 of the present appeal was considered by the Tribunal in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.556/Del/2015 for A.Y.2011-12 vide ground No. 3 of that appeal.
The relevant findings of the coordinate Bench read as under :-
Respectfully following the findings of the Coordinate Bench we decline to interfere. Ground No.1 is accordingly dismissed.
Ground No. 2 of the present appeal has been considered by the Tribunal :
Respectfully following the findings of the Coordinate Bench (supra). Ground No.2 is also dismissed.
In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
Decision announced in the open court in the presence of representatives of both the sides on 14.12.2020.