AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2019-20/1019615787(1), dated 18.10.2019 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
This Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:
“1.The impugned order of the CIT (A) is bad in law as well as on facts of the case.
2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the fact in not considering the CBDT Circular 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014. Although the above circular has been overruled by the judgement, but the judicial position is not yet settled.
3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of legal and professional charges for Roof Top Restaurant and exploring business opportunity in southern India as there is no Income generated from new business. These expenses has no business nexus with income of the assessee.
4.The Appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any of the Ground(s) of Appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal."
We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s above second substantive ground nowhere arises from the impugned assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer on 19.12.2018. Rejected in very terms.
Next comes the Revenue’s sole surviving former substantive ground seeking to revive the Assessing Officer’s action making section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance amounting to Rs.49,64,692/- as deleted in the lower appellate discussion. We first of all note that the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance does not even involve tax effect of Rs.60 lakhs or more going by CBDT latest Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024
This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has adopted judicial consistency inter alia in deleting proportionate interest expenditure disallowing under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 wherein assessee has already succeeded right from assessment year 2013-14 onwards. The factual position regarding the administrative expenditure component disallowance herein would be hardly any different as the CIT(A) has followed ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 62 taxmann.com 71 (Del.) that only exempt income yielding investments in the relevant previous year ought to be taken into consideration for computation thereof. We thus find no merit in the Revenue’s instant solitary substantive ground on merits as well.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.