DR. MOHAMMEDALI KAKA PATANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4830/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2013-143 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the dispute is not settled.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The assessment order had made additions on account of disallowance under Section 14A and disallowance of loan processing fee.

What were the issues?

Whether the loan processing fee was a capital expenditure and the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI,

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Anghle (DR)
Hearing: 09/03/2021Pronounced: 31/05/2021

O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [for short “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to the A.Y.2013-14, whereby the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( for short “the Act”)

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs.2,54,96,184/- The AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 2,60,02,930/- after making addition of Rs.47,025/-on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and addition of Rs.4,59,717 on account of disallowance of loan processing fee. The assessee

CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO. Against the said findings of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal .

4.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) eared in dismissing the appeal. 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) eared in approving the action of the learned A.O.in disallowing the loan processing fee amounting 4,59,717 as capital expenditure.”

5.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted to settle its dispute under the provisions of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, therefore, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to recall the order in case the dispute is not settled.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel.

7.

Since the appellant/assessee has opted to settle its dispute under the provisions of Vivad se Vishwas Tak Act, 2020, we dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn with the liberty to recall the order in case the dispute is not settled under the provisions of the said Act.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →