9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e : Ajay Vohra/Gaurav Jain, AR For the Revenue : Deepak Sehgal, Sr.DR ORDER U. B. S. Bedi (Judicial Member) These cross appeals, one by the assessee and other by the department is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)- VI, New Delhi dated 27.09.2007, relevant to assessment year 2004-05 for both these appeals. The issue relates to the disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and in the appeal of the assessee, following additional ground was raised as under which stood remitted on 10.12.2009: That on facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant should have been held entitled to set off of carried forward business losses against the assessed income for the year under consideration. 2. Facts indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive any dividend during the year. Hence, there was no exempt income and the apportionment of interest amounting to ₹ 97,87,570/- towards exempt income was not justified. (ii) That the investment in shares out of borrowed funds was not made for the purposes of earning of dividend income but the appellant primary motive was to earn the appreciation by way of capital gain. (iii) That the appellant had earned dividend income in assessment year 2002- 03 which was claimed as exempt. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest and other administrative expenses by applying the provision of section 14A against which the appeal is pending before the ITAT. In the light of these facts, learned AR argued that the disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. At the very outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that in relation to invocation of section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961, the matter requires to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding it in the light of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi (203 Taxmann 364). Therefore, orders of authorities below should be set aside and the matter be restored back on the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to follow the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd., cited supra to decide the issue afresh. 6. Ld.DR could not controvert this factual aspect of the matter and rather submitted that the matter can be restored back on the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue afresh. 7. After h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A and rule 8D would operate prospectively (and, not retrospectively) does not mean that prior to that period Assessing Officer is not to satisfy himself with correctness of claim of assessee with regard to such expenditure Held, yes Whether even for per-rule 8D period, whenever issue of section 14A arises before an Assessing Officer, he has, first of all, to ascertain correctness of claim of assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income under Act and if he is satisfied on an objective analysis and for cogent reason that amount of such expenditure as claimed by assessee is not correct, he required to determine amount of such expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
