9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.- Decided partly in favour of assessee - ITA No. 2429/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2015 - Sh. N.K. Saini And Sh. H.S. Sidhu, JJ. For The Assessee : Sh. Gautam Jain, CA For The Revenue : Sh. Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.02.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- XVIII, New Delhi has erred both in law and, on facts in confirming the disallowance of sum of ₹ 41,22,933/- by incorrectly invoking section 14A of the Act. 1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as selected for scrutiny. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee had shown dividend income of ₹ 34,409/- in the profit and loss account. He asked the assessee to give a note on applicability of Section 14A of the Act. The assessee furnished the requisite note which has been discussed by the AO in page nos. 2 3 of the assessment order dated 29.12.2011. The AO was not satisfied from the submissions of the assessee and observed that the assessee was having common infrastructure and personnel for earning income under various heads, thus, the assessee was also using its administrative, managerial and infrastructural set up for earning income which did not form part of total income under the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Average of assets 98,14,55,021 (Interest avg. Of investment/avg. of investments) ₹ 29,75,158/- As per Rule 8D(iii) - (0.5% of avg. of investments) ₹ 9,76,308/- TOTAL ₹ 41,22,933/- 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted the written submission which has been incorporated in para 5 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the disallowance made by the AO by observing that the assessee had not maintained a separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No. 4223/Del/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). The ld. DR in his rival submissions strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that the facts for the year under consideration are identical to the facts involved in the preceding assessment year 2008-09 which has already been adjudicated by this Bench of the ITAT vide order dated 23.11.2012 in ITA No. 4223/Del/2011 (supra) wherein the relevant findings have been given at para 7 of the said order which read as under: 7. We have he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r infrastructure expenditure for which the assessee must have spent certain amount. The incurring of short term loss from mutual funds and earning from long term capital gains on shares proves that assessee was continuously engaged in investment activities both short term and long term which cannot be done without proper human resources and proper infrastructure. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed 0.5% of expenditure as disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In view of the above, we restrict the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 5,64,016/- and delete the addition of ₹ 18,39,156/ on account of disallowance of interest u/s 14A of the Act. 8. We, therefore, by respectfully foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
