9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal nor its observations raise otherwise a substantial question of law. In the circumstances, if the matter is approached from the above angle, this appeal need not be entertained. It is dismissed. - Income Tax Appeal No. 384 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2017 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And Prakash D. Naik, JJ. Mr. A.R. Malhotra with Mr. N.A. Kazi for the Appellant None present for the Respondent ORDER P.C. 1. This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, dated 1292014 in Income Tax Appeal No.1145/Mum/2013. The two appeals one of the Revenue and another of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 were disposed of by this common order. 2. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed that appeal and restricted the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D to ₹ 9,52,147/. 4. Both the Revenue as also the assessee filed appeals to the Tribunal. The grievance of the Revenue is that the First Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,52,97,867/made by the Assessing Officer, while in the crossobjection the ground of the assessee was that the First Appellate Authority ought to have made no disallowance and he erred in confirming the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 9,52,147/. 5. A common order has been passed by the Tribunal. It noted that the balance-sheet of the assessee reveals that the assessee has its own funds in the form of share capital and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned, the Tribunal has maintained that the allocation of administrative and other expenses cannot be ruled out. It has, therefore, brought down the disallowance from the figure of ₹ 9,52,147/to ₹ 2,10,756/. Thus, what we find is that in para 9.1 the Tribunal has bifurcated the disallowance. Firstly, it has found that there is no reason for allocation of interest expenditure towards earning of exempt income. However, the allocation of administrative and other expenses cannot be ruled out. That is how the disallowance, as computed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), comes to ₹ 2,10,756/, in the opinion of the Tribunal. 8. Mr. Malhotra would submit that the disallowance is much more and if one peruses the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/in shares and securities, it has its sufficient own funds. The sufficient own funds are ₹ 101.31 crores, as against the investment of ₹ 69.08 crores only in shares and securities. The position of capital and reserve as on 31-3-2009 was noted by the Commissioner and then he finds that the shares are held in Demat account and dividend amount is directly credited to the Bank account. No other expenses are incurred for earning the income. The dividend received is only a nominal sum of ₹ 2,17,076/. The assessee pointed out that the term loans/working capital loans taken from Bank and financial institutions, etc., are for the company's manufacturing and business activities and since the same is utilised for business, the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such investments are set out on internal pages 4 and 5, running pages 28 and 29 of the order of the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority, therefore, rejected the argument that no further disallowance under Section 14A is called for. The provisions were applied and with effect from 2008-09. The First Appellate Authority worked out the disallowance in accordance with the mode prescribed in Rule 8D. Yet, on account of the discussion in para 7 of the order of the First Appellate Authority, the disallowance was worked out by taking recourse to both provisions at ₹ 9,52,147/. 13. Once the Tribunal has approached the matter on the basis that the First Appellate Authority could have applied the provision, namely, Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
