TML DRIVELINES LIMITED ( EARLIER KNOWN AS HV AXLES LIMITED), MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), MUMBAI

MA 315/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6325 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income

Judgement Text

, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EBENCH M UMBAI , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.315/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ./ITA/3436/MUM/2013 , /ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 TML DRIVELINES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS H.V. TRANSMISSIONS LTD.) 3 RD FLOOR, NANAVATI MAHALAYA 18, HOMI MODY STREET HUTATMA CHOWK, MUMBAI-400 001. PAN:AAACH 7626 Q VS. DCIT-2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,ROOM NO.561, 5 TH FLOOR MK ROAD,MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI V. JUSTIN-DR ASSESSEE BY: MS. AARTI SATHE / DATE OF HEARING: 12.01.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.02.2018 /ORDER , / PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE ITS APPLICATION,DATED 27/06/2017,THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THAT VIDE ITS ORDER,DATED 10/01/17,THE TRIBUNAL HAD ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL,THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT SAME WERE TO BE R ECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT,THAT THE MAIN ISSUE WAS ABOUT DIS ALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D(II) OF THE IT RULES (1962)(RULES), THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT PRESS ONE PART OF THE GROUND I.E DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS PER RULE 8D(II), THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN SES U/S.14A R.W.RULE 8D(2)(III),THAT IT HAD DISPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE THAT IT HAD NOT INCUR RED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS,THAT IT HAD MADE AN ALTERNA TIVE CONTENTION THAT AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER ANY PART OF ADMINI STRATIVE EXPENSES WAS RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME, THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE IS SUE OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT THAT SAME WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED T HAT GROUND RAISED ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WAS CONTEST ED,THAT ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT WAS ALSO RAISED,THAT TRIBUNAL DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) LEFT THE ISSUE THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. MA/315/M/17 TML DRIVELINES LTD. 2 3.WE FIND THAT GROUND NO.1 HAD TWO LIMBS I.E. DISAL LOWANCE MADE AS PER RULE 8D (II) AND 8D(2)(III),THAT IT WAS ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO T INCURRED ANY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE, THAT AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT WAS ALSO ADVANCED BY A SSESSEE IN THAT REGARD.THEREFORE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE READ AS UNDER: CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(III) SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE.GROUND NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. AS A RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. 28 , 2018 SD/- SD/- ( ( ( ( /PAWAN SINGH) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 28.02.2018. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.