9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has not submitted anything new and has further observed that sufficient opportunity had been given to the assessee in assessment proceedings – Relying upon Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court ] - determination of the amount of expenditure in relation to exempt income under Rule 8D would only come into play when the Assessing Officer rejects the claim of the assessee in this regard – the CIT(A) has not addressed the assessee’s submissions that investment was done out of preference share issue receipts and no interest bearing funds are involved – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.40/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2013 - I C Sudhir and Shamim Yahya, JJ. For the Appellants : Shri Sumant Chad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout any exception as soon as dividend earned has been claimed exempt. Assessing Officer further observed that on perusal of the balance sheet it reveals that there has been increase in the loan fund as compared to the preceding year for which interest has been paid which is reflected in the profit and loss account. Assessing Officer further observed that the onus is on the assessee company to substantiate the claim that there was no expenditure incurred to earn the purported dividend income which is not forming part of the total income. Assessing Officer further observed that the reply of the assessee is silent in this regard. Assessing Officer further observed that the possibility of incurring certain expenditures under the head Administ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. The assessee has realized Rs. 30 crores on December 11, 2007 in its bank account. Only two transactions of cash outflow has taken place for investments in mutual funds viz. ABN Amro Money Plus of rs. 5,00,00,000/- dated 19.12.2007 and DSP Merril Lynch Liquid Plus Institutional Plan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- dated 19.12.2007. Thus, the assessee has submitted that investment in mutual funds have been made out of amount received from issuance of preference shares. There is no borrowed fund on which interest is being paid in this regard. Therefore, it has been contended that the amount of Rs. 34,92,730/- should not be disallowed u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act because no interest expense has been incurred by the company in earning dividend income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. C.I.T. 15 Taxmann.com 390 (Delhi), determination of the amount of expenditure in relation to exempt income under Rule 8D would only come into play when the Assessing Officer rejects the claim of the assessee in this regard. 8.3 Since the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the facts of the case as emanating in the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) s order, it cannot be said that Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee. When the claim was not dealt in the assessment order or in the remand report then the question of rejecting the same does not arise. 8.4 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in his order has not addressed the assessee s submissions that investment was done out of prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
