Computation of disallowance u/s 14A can only be considered for those investments that have yielded any exempt income

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
I.T.A. No. 262/AGRA/2016 (A.Y 2012-13)

The Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Circle-2(1),
Agra
(APPELLANT)

vs

Global Heritage venture Ltd.
6-C,Gulmohar, 6C Middletown
Street, Ward-63, Kolkata, West
Bengal
Or
12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-
IV, New Delhi-110024
AACCK9842M
(RESPONDENT)

I.T.A. No. 387/AGRA/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)
The Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Circle-2(1),
Agra
(APPELLANT)

vs

M/s Global Heritage venture
Ltd.
12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-
IV, New Delhi
AACCK9842M
(RESPONDENT)

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against order dated
31.05.2016 passed by CIT(A)-23, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13 and
Appellant by Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Respondent by Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv

Date of Hearing 06.09.2021
Date of Pronouncement 01.10.2021

ORDER

Firstly, we are taking up the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 31/3/2014 declaring the total income of Rs. 38,31,080/-. The original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 27/3/2015 thereby assessing total income at Rs.121,70,39,930/-

2. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The CIT(A) has given a clear finding that the construction of hotel as capital work in progress was accepted by the Revenue for Assessment Year made u/s 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2009-10 as well as for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thus, the continuous stand of the revenue was these are work in progress treated to be as capital asset and not as stock-in- trade.

3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The interest income on fixed deposit in respect of arbitration proceeding and the same cannot be taxable during the year under consideration as the year of taxability of the same was contingent upon the final decision of the arbitrary Tribunal. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that in subsequent year the interest was offered to tax by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the said addition and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, Ground No. 2 of
the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

4. In result, both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 01st Day of October, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement