UNITED LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 27(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1004/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 December 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and relevant High Court decisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a suo moto disallowance under Section 14A of Rs. 8,50,094/-. The assessee requested to reduce/withdraw this disallowance based on a Delhi High Court decision, but this was declined by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's request to reduce/withdraw the suo moto disallowance under Section 14A should be considered, and if the Assessing Officer properly considered the documentary evidence and relevant judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 8D

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, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2013-14 on the following ground:-

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and under the provisions of law, the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in declining to accept the claim/request of the appellant to reduce/withdraw the suo moto disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act of Rs. 8,50,094/- while filing the return of income and on receipt of and in pursuance to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.,

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee has filed all the documentary evidence supporting the claims of the assessee which has not been properly considered by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned First Appellate Authority. He requested that the issue regarding the addition under section 14A read with section 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be set aside to the Assessing Officer to decide the same fresh as per law as well as per the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd 272 CTR 542 (Del.) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.)

3.

On the contrary, learned DR relied upon the order passed by the Revenue authority and did not seriously opposed the request of the assessee.

4.

I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant record specially order passed by the Revenue authority and I am of the view that in the interest of justice, the request of the learned counsel for the assessee is genuine and should be accepted therefore, I accept the request of the learned counsel for the assessee and set aside the issues in dispute to the Assessing Officer to decide the same fresh as per law and as per the decisions of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd 272 CTR 542 (Del.) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.).

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17/12/2019.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →