ACIT, Chandigarh V. The Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh

MA 116/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9130 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA
• Keywords: Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ % & ' ( , ' BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS.116 TO 118/CHD/2017 IN ./ ITA NOS.992 TO 994/CHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH. M/S PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AABCP1599F /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ATUL GOYAL, CA / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL.CIT ! /DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2021 '#$% ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.03.2021 (VIRTUAL COURT) /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE REVENUE VIDE THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT MA NOS.116 TO 118/CHD/2017 A .YS.2008-09 TO 2010-11 2 DATED 10.11.2016, PASSED IN ITA NOS.992 TO 994/CHD/ 2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11. 2. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE US THE RECTIFICATION SOUGHT IN ALL THE THREE YEARS IS IDEN TICAL AND PERTAINS TO CORRECTION OF THE CLAUSE RELATING TO RU LE 8D(2) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 MENTIONED IN THE ORDER W HILE GIVING FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWAN CE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE ACT ,THE CALCULATION OF WHI CH IS GOVERNED BY THE SAID RULE. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT REVEALS THAT THE ITAT IN ALL THE YEARS W HILE DEALING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPE NSES U/S 14A OF THE ACT HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE AO T O DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AND WHILE DOING SO HAD DIRECTED THE AO FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF RULE 8D(2) WHILE THE CORRECT CLAUSE DEALING WITH CALCULATION O F DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES WAS CLAUSE (II) OF RULE 8D(2). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR TOOK US THROUGH THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE ITA T IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, DATED 10.11.2016, AND A T PARA 9 OF THE SAME POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT HAD MENTIONED THE MA NOS.116 TO 118/CHD/2017 A .YS.2008-09 TO 2010-11 3 ISSUE BEING ADJUDICATED AS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF RULE 8D(2). TAKING US FURTHER THRO UGH THE SAID PARAGRAPH THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT DEALT WITH VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS THEREAFTER WHICH RE LATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 14A OF THE ACT WHICH I S DEALT WITH BY CLAUSE (II) OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES. H E THEREAFTER POINTED OUT FROM THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT WHIL E RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE AO TO CALCULATE DISALLOW ANCE AFRESH IT WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED AS CLAUSE (I ) OF RULE 8D(2) INSTEAD OF CLAUSE (II) OF RULE 8D (2). THE L D. DR STATED THAT THIS LIMITED CORRECTION NEEDED TO BE MA DE IN THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE ITAT FOR THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT YEARS. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY AGREED WI TH THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED T HE CONTENTS OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT POINTED OUT BEFOR E US AND ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. DR THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST U/S14A OF THE ACT, THE CALCULATION OF WHIC H IS DEALT WITH BY RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES, THE ITAT HAD INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED CLAUSE (I) OF RULE 8D(2) W HILE MA NOS.116 TO 118/CHD/2017 A .YS.2008-09 TO 2010-11 4 RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR CALCULATING THE DISALLOWANCE AFRESH. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DIREC T CORRECTION IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER IN THE CONCLUDING PORTION WHICH IS AS UNDER: FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF RULE 8D(2), IF ANY, IN CONSONANCE WITH VIEW TAKEN IN RELIANCE UTILITIES (SUPRA) ETC. TO READ AS UNDER: FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF RULE 8D(2), IF ANY, IN CONSONANCE WITH VIEW TAKEN IN RELIASNCE UTILITIES (SUPRA) ETC. THE REMAINING PART OF THE ORDER WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TE RMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19.03.2021. SD/- SD/- $ % & ' ( (DIVA SINGH ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ! ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER )* ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ /DATED: 19 TH MARCH, 2021 * * #&' ()*) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT 2. ',+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. - / CIT MA NOS.116 TO 118/CHD/2017 A .YS.2008-09 TO 2010-11 5 4. - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. )./' 0 , !0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35 / GUARD FILE #& / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR