Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. v. ACIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr CIT (Central) v Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd 2022 TaxPub(DT) 4907 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 3890 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3520 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1461 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 838 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT DELHI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, A.M. & KUL BHARAT, J.M. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 477/DEL/2023, ITA No. 478/DEL/2023 and ITA No. 1042/DEL/2023, ITA No. 1043/DEL/2023 12 February, 2024 Assessee by: KVSR Krishna, CA & Aman Goel, CA Department by: Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR) & Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR ORDER *Kul Bharat, J.M.* The captioned cross appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue, for Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19, involve common issues for adjudication. Therefore, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this composite order for the sake of convenience. 2. Facts for both the assessment year in question, in brief, are that the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessments under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were completed by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act; and disallowance on account of amortization of lease rentals. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Thereby he deleted the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act to the extent of no exempt income and sustained the disallowance in respect of amortization of lease rentals. Now the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal against their respective grievance. 3. First we take up assessees appeals for adjudication. The only effective ground in both the assessment years is regarding disallowance of Rs. 42,65,058 being amortization of lease payment. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in assessees own case for earlier years. He relied on Tribunals Order dated 15-11-2022 in assessees own case for Assessment Year 2016- 17, rendered in Income Tax Act no. 581/Del/2022, wherein the Tribunal has followed its earlier order for Assessment Year 2012-13 in Income Tax Act No. 5711/Del/2017. 5. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the submissions. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that Coordinate Bench in assessees own case for Assessment Year 2016-17 has adjudicated identical issue, inter alia, by observing as under: 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Id counsel for the assessee. An identical issue came up for hearing before this Tribunal in Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 5711/DEL/2017. This Tribunal has considered the issue at Para 6 of its order and, thereafter, held as under: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 838 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT DELHI

NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, A.M. & KUL BHARAT, J.M.

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. v. ACIT

ITA No. 477/DEL/2023, ITA No. 478/DEL/2023 and ITA No. 1042/DEL/2023, ITA No. 1043/DEL/2023

12 February, 2024

Assessee by: KVSR Krishna, CA & Aman Goel, CA

Department by: Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR) & Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR

ORDER

Kul Bharat, J.M.

The captioned cross appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue, for Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19, involve common issues for adjudication. Therefore, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this composite order for the sake of convenience.

2. Facts for both the assessment year in question, in brief, are that the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessments under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were completed by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act; and disallowance on account of amortization of lease rentals. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Thereby he deleted the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act to the extent of no exempt income and sustained the disallowance in respect of amortization of lease rentals. Now the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal against their respective grievance.

3. First we take up assessees appeals for adjudication. The only effective ground in both the assessment years is regarding disallowance of Rs. 42,65,058 being amortization of lease payment.

4. Learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in assessees own case for earlier years. He relied on Tribunals Order dated 15-11-2022 in assessees own case for Assessment Year 2016- 17, rendered in Income Tax Act no. 581/Del/2022, wherein the Tribunal has followed its earlier order for Assessment Year 2012-13 in Income Tax Act No. 5711/Del/2017.

5. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the submissions.

6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that Coordinate Bench in assessees own case for Assessment Year 2016-17 has adjudicated identical issue, inter alia, by observing as under:

6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Id counsel for the assessee. An identical issue came up for hearing before this Tribunal in Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 5711/DEL/2017. This Tribunal has considered the issue at Para 6 of its order and, thereafter, held as under: