DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERCURY TRAVELS LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 236/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 March 2018AY 2008-093 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year. It also upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance due to the AO's failure to record mandatory satisfaction.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2008-09. The CIT(A) had deleted additions made by the AO in previous years, which were upheld by the ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2006-07. The CIT(A) also deleted disallowance under Section 14A for not recording satisfaction.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the AO were correctly deleted by the CIT(A) based on previous ITAT decisions. Whether the AO properly followed the mandatory satisfaction requirement under Section 14A before applying Rule 8D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

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, BENCH ‘C’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A.T.Varkey, JM ]

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.236/Kol/2016
ITA NO.1160/Kol/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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).

3.

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.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →