THE BHARAT LINE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues of reopening of assessment, classification of leave and license receipts, and disallowance of expenses under Section 14A back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done based on concessions from the Revenue and in light of Supreme Court decisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against multiple assessment orders concerning various assessment years. The appeals involved issues related to the reopening of assessments, classification of leave and license receipts, and disallowance of expenses under Section 14A.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and how leave and license receipts should be classified for tax purposes, along with the applicability of Section 14A disallowances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT381 citing373 ITR 673 · 2015 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ITA No. 1515, 7924, 7925 & 7926/Mum/2011 /Mum/2010 ITA No. 858 /Mum/2013 order dated 04-12-2009, 30-07-2010, 11-12-2008, 02-08-2010 & 30-11-2011 u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The first common issue in these three appeals in and 7925/Mum/2010 for the A.Ys. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007- 08 is as regards to the issue of reopening under section 147 / 148 of the Act.
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that in assessment years 2004-05 and 2007-08, the assessee has not raised this issue before the AO or before CIT (A). The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the additional ground is raised regarding assessing the leave and license receipts under the head profit and gains of business specially, in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment P Ltd. v. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that in assessment year 2004-05 this ground was taken before CIT(A), but was not pressed. In such circumstances, the leaned Counsel for the assessee stated this being a legal issue, the same should be admitted and adjudicated in term of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC).
We have gone through the above additional ground regarding reopening of assessment and notice that this is raised in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. (supra), and these facts are not coming out of the order of CIT(A) or the AO because the assessee has not objected the same before the AO. In term of the above, a query was put to the learned Sr. DR, he fairly conceded that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO for adjudication of these additional ground raised qua this jurisdictional issue of reopening. In term of the above, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in all these three years. Accordingly, this issue of these three appeals of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
The next common issue in these six appeals is as regards to the assessment of income derived by assessee from leave and license fee and declared under the head of profit and gains of business but assessed by the AO as income from house property. Page 2 of 4
ITA No. 1515, 7924, 7925 & 7926/Mum/2011 /Mum/2010 ITA No. 858 /Mum/2013 The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that now Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles that whether the Memorandum of Article and Association of Article authorized the company to rent out the property, and the income is to be declared as business, needs verification in term of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd.(supra). When this matter was put to the learned Sr. DR he fairly conceded the position and requested the Bench to restore the matter back to the file of the AO. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we ae of the view that let the AO verify the issue and will decide the issue in term of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. (supra), after verifying the facts of the present case including the Memorandum of Association and Article of Association of the assessee’s company. As regards the consequential disallowance of expenses of renovation and brokerage, corporate expenses and expenses incurred for letting out of premises, these all are consequential to first ground whether the income is to be assessed under the head of income from house property or it is to be assessed under the head profits and gains of business. Let the first issue be decided by the AO and the consequences will be following from these grounds. Accordingly, these issues of disallowance of expenses raised by various grounds are also set aside to the file of the AO.
The next common issue in these six appeals is as regards to the disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that in all these years, the AO has invoked the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act and in all these years i.e. AYs 2004-05 to 2007-08 the provision of Rule 8D will not apply and only disallowance can be made, if there is a direct nexus between expenditure and the income earned which is claimed to be exempt. According to the learned Counsel, there is no finding by the AO in these AYs and hence, additions should not be sustained.
The learned Sr. DR conceded the position and argued that let’s this issue also be set aside to the file of the AO because issue regarding jurisdiction is going back to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication, hence, this issue also can go back to the Page 3 of 4
ITA No. 1515, 7924, 7925 & 7926/Mum/2011 /Mum/2010 ITA No. 858 /Mum/2013 file of these assessment years. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we restore back this issue in all these six years to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, these six appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25-01-2017.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
