9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 30. 12. 2011, determining the total income of the assessee at (-)Rs. 4, 00, 57, 592/-. 2. The effective Ground of appeal is about disallowance made u/s. 14A r. w. Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962, (Rules). During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 52 crores in equity shares of Western MP Infrastructures, that it had paid interest of Rs. 2. 22crores, that it had not made any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. He directed the assessee to explain as to why disallowance should not be made invoking the provisions of the said section. Vide its letter, dt. 4. 11. 2011, the assessee stated that it had not earned any exempt income during the year under appeal, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of utilisation of borrowed funds for the purpose of making investment could not be ruled out. He directed the AO to work out the disallowance as per the formula provided in sub clause(ii) of Rule 8D(2). Further he directed the AO to adopt the average value of assets to Rs. 153. 54 crores. He further directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) to Rs. 5. 00 lakhs only. 4. Before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) stated that matter could be decided on merits. Authorised Representative (AR)contended that the assessee did not earn any exempt income and hence, no disallowance can be made for the year under appeal. He referred to the case of Gateway Distriparks Ltd. ( ITA No. 5746/Mum/2013-dt. 07/04/2016). 5. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P. ) Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para 15) viii. CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix. CIT v. Shivam Motors (P. ) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) xii. Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITA [2005] 278 ITR (AT) 1 (Ahd) (para 10) " xiii. Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) (para 12) 3. 1. In view of the factual matrix and following the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
