9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing resources. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of telephone expenses on personal usage - Held that:- We are in agreement with the contentions of the assessee on the issue as this is the case of a Private Ltd. company wherein the normal personal usage of expenses and the consequent disallowance is legally not permissible. There has not been any logical basis for the AO to hold the view that 30% of the impugned expenses pertain to personal usage. Therefore, disallowance made was rightly directed to be deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.5958/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2018 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 27.2.2012 to the assessee and in response to the same, Assessee filed a copy of the return declaring at an income of ₹ 11,78,23,598/- for the AY 2011-12 alongwith a letter dated 20.3.2012, by staging that the assessee had already filed its return u/s. 139 of the Act and the same may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. In response to the various statutory notices, the AR of the assesee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and also furnished the required information / details and explanation as called for. During the year the assessee has claimed telephone, cell and land line internet expense amounting to ₹ 16,39,546/-. The AO is of the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order by respectfully following the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Delhi), which does not need any interference on our part and requested that the same may be upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the impugned order. With regard to ground no. 2 relating to deletion of addition of ₹ 63,78,347/- made by the AO u/s. 14A r.w. rule 8D is concerned, we find that AO has proceeded to make the impugned disallowance without confronting proposed disallowance to the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings and therefore, has completely ignored the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the claim of the assessee that the impugned investments in the shares of the subsidiary companies is not meant to generate dividend income but are strategic in nature to obtain long term advantage in terms of control of the business. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd 4245/DEL/2011 and of ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Circle 2(1), New Delhi vs. Bharat Hotel Ltd (IT AT No. 4959/DEL/2012 No. 5401/DEL/2013, on which the Ld. CIT(A) has also relied. In view of the above detailed analysis of the case, there is no case for disallowance u/s 14A, hence, the same was rightly directed to be deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
