Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘C’ KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A.T.Varkey, JM ]
ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM:
This is an appeal by the Revenue directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-8, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2008-09. 2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that ground no.1 is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of ITAT, Kolkata ‘B ‘ Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2006-07 vide order 26.12.2017.
3. The ld. CIT(A) at para 4 in his order has pointed out that there are recurring issues and similar additions have been made in the earlier year and then the ld. CIT(A) had deleted these additions. The ITAT has since upheld the order of that ld. CIT(A) for A.Y.2006-07. Thus respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench on this issue we dismiss this ground of revenue by upholding the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Ground No.2 is against the deletion of disallowance by the ld. CIT(A) relating to section 14A r.w.rule 8D. The ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions by holding that the AO has not followed the mandatory requirement of the section. The section M/s Mercury Travels Ltd A.Y.2008-09 2 requires that the A.O. has to record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. He applied under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act without recording of satisfaction as mandatory required as held in the judgment of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) . We do not find any infirmity in this order of the ld. CIT(A). In the result we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue.
Ground no.3 is general in nature which does not require any adjudication. 5. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 21.03.2018.