9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said investment in the shares - Provision of Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not apply to the assessee's case - Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 1313&1314/Kol/2012 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2013 - Sri Shamim Yahya, AM And Sri George Mathan, JM,JJ. For the Appellant: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Respondent: Shri S. P. Choudhury, Advocate ORDER Per Shri George Mathan, JM ITA No.1313/Kol/2012 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order of ld. C.I.T.(A)- I, Kolkata in Appeal No.583/CIT(A)-I/Cir-3/09-10 dated 26.06.2012 for Assessment year 2007-08. ITA No.1314/Kol/2012 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order of ld. C.I.T.(A)- I, Kolkata in Appeal No.766/CIT(A)-I/Cir-3/11-12 dated 26.06.2012 for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l/2011 and ITA No.1423/Kol/2011 dated 19.06.2013 wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has categorically held that it is for the AO to show that the provision of section 14A of the Act was applicable in assessee's case and when computing the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D it is to be in relation to the investment which generated the income which does not form part of the total income. 5. In reply the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the ld. AR vehemently supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of assessment order clearly shows that the assessee has not derived any dividend income. Further a perusal of the income expenditure account of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case, the learned ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.85,81,632/- made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that it was for the assessee to prove by producing material on record that no interest bearing fund was utilized for investments. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.85,81,632/- without appreciating the fact that disallowance was made as per rule 8D (2)(iii) and not as per rule 8D(2)(ii)(interest) of the I.T.Rule, 1962. 5. That the order of the A.O. be upheld in view of the judgement of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Dhanuka Sons Vs CIT (Central)-I, Kolkata [12 Taxman.Com 227 (CAL)2011]. 4. That the Department craves leave to add, alter or modify an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
