9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation as to why in its case for earning exempt income, there is no administrative or other expenses and as it has also not come out with any alternate calculations, there was no reason to interfere with the calculation of the Revenue authorities – thus, the order of the FAA is upheld – Decided against Assessee. Deduction u/s 43B(F) of the Act – Held that:- CIT(A) has referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the SLP and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer - AO has already disallowed the amount and the CIT(A) has confirmed the same – thus, there is no purpose for setting aside the matter to the file of the AO –Decided against Assessee. - I.T.A .No. 947/Del/2013 & I.T.A .No. 948/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2014 - SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture and then only resort to application of Rule 8D. 3.1. He further submitted that if there is no actual expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, then no amount can be disallowed u/s 14A. For this proposition he relied on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) pages 289 to 291 where it is held as follows: Corollary to this that if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act. 3.2. He submitted that the investment in question was made from internal accruals. He referred to the submissions made before the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is at pages 6 and 7 of the paper book and submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the decision of Chemivest Ltd., reported in 121 ITD 318 (S.B.) (Del). He relied on the order of the Assessing Officer as well as that of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submitted that Rule 8D squarely applies to the facts of the case and under those circumstances the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record as well as the case laws cited, we hold as follows. 6. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) reported in 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) has clearly laid down that no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act, if no expenditure is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined on facts. 6.1. Though there is no interest expenditure that can be said to have been incurred by the assessee for the purpose of making investments, administrative and other expenditure if any incurred has to be quantified and disallowed in accordance with law. As the assessee has not given any convincing explanation as to why in its case for earning exempt income, there is no administrative or other expenses and as it has also not come out with any alternate calculations, we find no reason to interfere with the calculation of the Revenue authorities. Thus, we uphold the finding of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this ground of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 7. For the Assessment Year 2009-10, though ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
