D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2148/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 June 2021AY 2013-143 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed both grounds of appeal, respectfully following its prior decisions. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of additional depreciation and the disallowance of proportionate interest and administrative expenses under Section 14A.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning additional depreciation and disallowance of interest and administrative expenses. The Tribunal noted that both grounds of appeal were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation and the allowability of disallowances under Section 14A based on previous tribunal orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey

order

: June 23rd, 2021 ORDER

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata [hereinafter the “CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dated27.03.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 3. After hearing rival contentions, we find that both the grounds of appeal

are covered by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2014-15 in order dated 30.09.2020.

4. On the issue of claim of additional depreciation, the Tribunal at para-4 held as follows: “4. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A) has placed reliance upon this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s orders (supra) in assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on the very issue whilst deleting the impugned disallowance coupled with this, yet another coordinate bench in departmental appeal ITA No. 1055/Kol/2018 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 22.11.2019 has adopted the judicial consistency in declining Revenue’s identical grievance. Its pleadings are fair enough in not pinpointing any distinction on fact and law in all

Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Universal Cables Ltd. these assessment years qua this issue of additional depreciation. We therefore reject the Revenue’s instant former substantive ground for this precise reason alone.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal, we dismiss ground no. 1 of the Revenue.

6.

On ground no. 2 the Tribunal in its order at para-5 held as follows:

5. Next comes the Revenue’s latter substantive grievance seeking to revive section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) proportionate interest and administrative expenditure disallowance(s) of Rs.2,70,00,000/- and 25,52,000/-; aggregating to Rs.2,95,52,000/- made in the course of assessment and restored back to the Assessing Officer for examining the assessee’s factual claim not to have utilized any interest bearing funds for making the exempt income yielding investments qua the former limb followed by further directions to take into account only the exempt income yielding investments; respectively. The CIT(A) has admittedly gone by the tribunal’s findings in earlier assessment year(s) in tune with yet another coordinate bench’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (Kol) as upheld in hon’ble jurisdictional high court in G. A. No. 3581 of 2013 to this effect. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut this clinching fact that the CIT(A) has adopted judicial consistency wherein the twin clinching factual issues have been restored back to Assessing Officer for factual verification qua the corresponding facts and figures only. We therefore see no merit in the instant latter substantive ground as well.

7.

Respectfully following the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal, we dismiss ground no. 2 of the Revenue.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →