Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

372 ITR 694High Court2015#63 most cited

What is Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This principle also applies when computing book profits under section 115JB.

803

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · section 14A disallowance · exempt income expenditure limit · Rule 8D · section 115JB book profit · disallowance cannot exceed exempt income · Joint Investments · Delhi High Court 2015

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 8DSection 115JBSection 143(2)Section 10AASection 10B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 14asection 37section 10salaryprevious yearsection 80section 14companyindiatransfer

Judgments citing Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4341/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. CIT, M/s Hero Corporate Circle-11(1), Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. E-1, Qutab Hotel Complex, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 016. PAN –AAACH 1277P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Anima, Sr. DR Respondent by None Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the…

ACIT 3 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.01/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ ACIT-3(2)(1) M/s. LML Ltd. Room No.674, 6th Floor, 714, Raheja Chambers, 213, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL0141N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 12/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 01 /09/2021 आदेश / O R D…

DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon vs. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5040/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 153DSection 234B

…exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 39,992/- and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint 14 I.T.As. No.3313 & 5040/DEL/2019 Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. In the result, ground no. 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and grounds no. (iii) to (viii) of the departmental appeal are also dismissed. 15. Ground no. 5 & 7of the assessee’s appeal are general and do not call for any adjudication under these grounds of appeal here. 16. Ground no. 6…

DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon vs. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5039/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 153A

…issue. 23. It is seen that there is exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 72,740/- and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. In the result, ground no. 11 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and grounds no. (iii) to (viii) of the departmental appeal are also dismissed. 34 I.T.As. No.3312 & 5039/DEL/2019 24. Ground no. 12 & 15 of the assessee’s appeal are general and do not call for any adjudication under these…

DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon vs. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5038/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 28Section 45(2)

…issue. 51. It is seen that there is exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 49,301/- and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. In the result, ground no. 15 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and grounds no. (v) to (x) of the departmental appeal are dismissed. 52. Ground no. 16 and 19of the assessee’s appeal are general and do not call for any adjudication under these grounds of appeal here. 41 I.T.As. No.3311 &…

DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon vs. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5037/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 43(5)

…s deleted. 68. In any case, there is exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 85,656/-and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. But, Since we have deleted the entire amount of disallowance made by AO, hence even the disallowance sustained by CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 85,656/- is also not sustainable. In the result, ground no. 14 62 I.T.As. No.3310 & 5037/DEL/2019 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed and grounds no…

Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon

ITA 3313/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 43(5)

…s deleted. 68. In any case, there is exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 85,656/-and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. But, Since we have deleted the entire amount of disallowance made by AO, hence even the disallowance sustained by CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 85,656/- is also not sustainable. In the result, ground no. 14 62 I.T.As. No.3310 & 5037/DEL/2019 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed and grounds no…

Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3312/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 153A

…issue. 23. It is seen that there is exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 72,740/- and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. In the result, ground no. 11 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and grounds no. (iii) to (viii) of the departmental appeal are also dismissed. 34 I.T.As. No.3312 & 5039/DEL/2019 24. Ground no. 12 & 15 of the assessee’s appeal are general and do not call for any adjudication under these…

Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon

ITA 3311/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 28Section 45(2)

…issue. 51. It is seen that there is exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 49,301/- and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. In the result, ground no. 15 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and grounds no. (v) to (x) of the departmental appeal are dismissed. 52. Ground no. 16 and 19of the assessee’s appeal are general and do not call for any adjudication under these grounds of appeal here. 41 I.T.As. No.3311 &…

Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon

ITA 3310/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 43(5)

…s deleted. 68. In any case, there is exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 85,656/-and for this reason also, disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded this amount in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Ltd. 372 ITR 694 and hence we uphold the order of CIT(A) to this extent. But, Since we have deleted the entire amount of disallowance made by AO, hence even the disallowance sustained by CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 85,656/- is also not sustainable. In the result, ground no. 14 62 I.T.As. No.3310 & 5037/DEL/2019 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed and grounds no…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1592/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…ntum of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and also the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.7.2017). 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered an identical issue in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019)(101 taxmann.com 167) and has held as under:- “25. Tota…

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1590/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…ntum of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and also the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.7.2017). 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered an identical issue in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019)(101 taxmann.com 167) and has held as under:- “25. Tota…

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1589/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…ntum of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income. In support of this proposition, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 and also the decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.7.2017). 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered an identical issue in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd (2019)(101 taxmann.com 167) and has held as under:- “25. Tota…

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Usha International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3318/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…extent of dividend income. 5.3 In view of decision of my predecessors in the case of the appellant company in appeals for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 and following the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.), CIT v. Holcim India P. Ltd., (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282 and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is restricted to Rs. 7,12,047/- i.e. the amount of dividend income. Since the assessee company has already made disallowance of Rs. 3,44,109/-. Further disallow…

M/S Kanade Aqua Farms Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (3)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 151/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Kanade Aqua Farms Income Tax Officer- Pvt. Ltd., 3/21, Poddar Vs. 6(3)(3), Building No. 2, Dr. Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Maisheri Road, Near Aaykar Bhavan, Sandhurst Road Railway M.K. Marg, Station, Mumbai– 400009 Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aaack0421C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Ms.Vinita Shah, A.R Revenue By : Shri Neeraj Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (For Short „Cit(A)‟), Dated 03.10.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 13.11.2016 . 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Learned Assessing Officer In Disallowing The Clearing Expenses Of Rs.

For Appellant: Ms.Vinita Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…have been made in its hands. Our aforesaid view that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of the exempt income received by the assessee during the year is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Joint Investments Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) (ii) DCIT Vs. Craft Builders and Constructions (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) [SLP filed by the revenue was thereafter dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 112 taxman.com 322 (SC)] (iii) Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA 149 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019 (Bom) (iv) M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-IV (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) ITA…

Maheswari Plaza Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 694/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri B. Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar,DR
Section 14A

…se respectively. There is no dispute about the clinching fact that the assessee had indeed derived its corresponding exempt income in both these assessment years. We further note that the hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in Joint Investment Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.) holds that the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance does not exceed the amount of exempt income itself. We therefore partly decline Revenue’s arguments supporting the same to this limited extent. The Assessing Officer is directed to finalise his consequential computation in both these assessment years and shall make sure that the…

Maheswari Plaza Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 693/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri B. Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar,DR
Section 14A

…se respectively. There is no dispute about the clinching fact that the assessee had indeed derived its corresponding exempt income in both these assessment years. We further note that the hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in Joint Investment Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.) holds that the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance does not exceed the amount of exempt income itself. We therefore partly decline Revenue’s arguments supporting the same to this limited extent. The Assessing Officer is directed to finalise his consequential computation in both these assessment years and shall make sure that the…

M/S Rns Infrastructure Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeals of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 319/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shreeshkumar Eshwar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14ASection 40Section 56

…) in restricting the disallowance to the amount of exempt dividend income. We notice ITA Nos.319 & 291/Bang/2018 M/s. RNS Infrastructure Ltd., Bangalore Page 6 of 9 that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 has held that the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed exempt income. The Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.7.20 17) has expressed an identical view. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered an identical issue in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Constructio…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Rns Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore

In the result the appeals of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 291/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shreeshkumar Eshwar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14ASection 40Section 56

…) in restricting the disallowance to the amount of exempt dividend income. We notice ITA Nos.319 & 291/Bang/2018 M/s. RNS Infrastructure Ltd., Bangalore Page 6 of 9 that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 has held that the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed exempt income. The Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.4658/Mum/2015 dated 26.7.20 17) has expressed an identical view. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered an identical issue in the case of PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Constructio…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Noida Software Technology Park Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3178/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Cit(A) By Way Of Impugned Order Deleted Both The Additions. Revenue Is, Therefore, Before Us In This Appeal.

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9

…Cheminvest (supra) and CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. 90 CCH 81 (Del) (HC) are applicable and it was held in these decisions that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned. Further, in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 the Hon’ble court held that the disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the amount of tax exempt income. 13. In view of these undisputed facts and the settled position of law, we do not find any penalty city in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. Consequently we dismiss grounds No. 3 and 4 of Revenue’s appeal…