9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue do not call for any interference on our part and we deem it appropriate to dismiss ground No. 1 of the departmental appeal. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Department could not negate the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) that the assessee did not have any exempt income during the year under consideration. Therefore, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly applied the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and we find no reason to interfere on this issue also - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5013/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2017 - SHRI R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue expenditure to be claimed @20% in successive years and the remaining 20% was allowed as a deduction for the year under consideration. Further, the AO also worked out the value of average investment during the year and proceeded to disallow 0.5% of the average value of investment and, thereafter, made a disallowance of ₹ 58,785/- u/s 14A of the Act. 2.1 On appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), both the additions / disallowances were deleted by the Ld. First appellate authority. Now the department has approached the ITAT and has challenged the deletion of both the disallowances. 3. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that as far as the disallowance u/s 37 of the Act was concerned, the AO had recorded a finding that substantial amount had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of any part of expenditure not being wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business carried out by the company. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has not brought out any specific instances to demonstrate that particular items of expenditure pertain to promotion of the brand. Even during the proceedings before us, the department could not demonstrate, with evidence, its claim that the expenditure incurred in respect of advertisement and publicity expenses had substantial amount of brand promotion expenses. How the AO has segregated the advertisement expenses into advertisement expenses and brand promotion expenses is also not discernible from the AO s order. The Ld. CIT (A), while allowing the assessee s claim f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso could not cite any judicial precedents in favour of the Revenue which were in opposition to the judgments relied upon by the Ld. CIT (A). In the given circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue do not call for any interference on our part and we deem it appropriate to dismiss ground No. 1 of the departmental appeal. 5.2 As far as ground No. 2 relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT (A) has given a finding that the assessee did not have any exempt income during the year and that the investments being held by it were in the nature of strategic investments. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT (A) has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
