9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the grounds of appeal in the CIT (A) proceedings do not expressly spell out this aspect, it cannot be denied that this matter was agitated before the CIT (A) for hearing as well as before the ITAT. At the same time, this Court notices that in both Maxopp and Taikisha, and the ultimate order made by both the Division Benches was to remit the matter for fresh consideration by the AO. Perhaps this was necessitated by the fact that the interpretation of Section 14A - guided by Rule 8D was in the light of the decision in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the fact that the Rule 8D was brought in later, i.e., w.e.f. AY 2008-09 - Thus matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the claim of the assessee with regard to the expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, in relation to exempt?income, the Assessing Officer would have to indicate cogent reasons for the same. It is further contended that this ruling was reiterated and applied in another decision CIT-VI v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., 370 ITR 338 (Del) where the Court further spelt out as follows:- 17. More important and relevant for us are the observations in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) on requirement and stipulation of satisfaction ITA 115/2014 and 119/2014 Page 17 of 20 being recorded by the Assessing Officer with reference to the accounts under Section 14(2) of the Act and Rule 8D(1) of the Rules. It was observed:- Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14A before the Assessing Officer proceeds to apply the method prescribed under sub-rule (2). It is thus contended that the appellant's contentions with respect to the applicability of Section 18A and Rule 8D were brushed aside, and besides, more importantly, in the absence of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, no jurisdiction could be claimed to make the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 13,82,741/- Counsel for the Revenue contends that the order of the ITAT is justified. It is pointed out that the assessee did not agitate the issue of jurisdiction specifically with respect to lack of satisfaction recorded by the AO, even though such contention was advanced in the appellate proceedings. It was submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
