9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er years. The Revenue has not placed any material on record suggesting that the order of the ld.CIT(A) in the earlier assessment year has been reversed by this Tribunal or by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld.- Decided against revenue. Disallowances u/s.14A - investment in shares of companies other than 2 foreign subsidiary companies - Held that:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the provisions of Rule 8D would be applicable in the year under consideration. The ld.CIT(A) has decided this issue in accordance with Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962, therefore we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quire no independent adjudication. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 24/12/2010, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made disallowance of interest under Proviso to Sec.36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to ₹ 3,49,522/-, disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act amounting to ₹ 5,01,209/- and disallowance of excess depreciation amounting to ₹ 13,56,853/-. The AO has also made addition on expenses relatable to exempt income u/s.10 (disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act) for the purpose of computing book profit. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. He strongly supported the order of the AO. 4.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the company has sufficient interest-free funds of its own in the form of current year cash profit of ₹ 978.52 lacs (Profit After Tax of ₹ 248.25 lacs and Depreciation of ₹ 730.27 lacs) and the same has been utilized for the purpose of impugned addition capital work-in-progress of ₹ 32.96 lacs. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided this issue in para-3.4 of his order as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of Revenue s appeal is rejected. 5.2. Ground No.2 of Revenue s appeal is against deletion of addition made on account of depreciation of ₹ 13,56,853/-. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 5.3. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of his predecessor in the AY 2008-09. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suggesting that the order of the ld.CIT(A) in the earlier assessment year has been reversed by this Tribunal or by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, Revenue s this ground is rejected. As a result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 7. Now, we take up the assessee s appeal in ITA No.542/Ahd/2012, for AY 2009-10, wherein the following grounds have been raised:- 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by confirming disallowances u/s.14A of the Act on investment in shares of companies other than 2 foreign subsidiary companies and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the same while computin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
