9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat disallowance u/s 14A is to be made only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income. So, we are of the considered view that in any case, disallowance cannot be made more than exempt dividend income earned by the assessee. So, impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) by invoking the provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D is to be restricted to the earned exempt income i.e. ₹ 200/-. Consequently, present appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No. 1448/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - HON BLE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL And SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 at ₹ 114,23,60,000/-. In the immediately preceding assessment year, interest on unsecured loan was claimed at ₹ 1,30,72,192/- and in the year under consideration at ₹ 797/-. Assessee claimed that in the year under consideration, the assessee has incurred administrative expenses of ₹ 8,14,689/- inclusive of professional charges of ₹ 4,54,450/-, audit fee of ₹ 1,65,000/-, vehicle repair and maintenance expenses of ₹ 92,871/-, insurance expenses of ₹ 91,963/-, bank charges of ₹ 1,379/- and nominal finance charges of ₹ 797/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 9161 (for short the Act ). However, AO by declining the submissions raised by the assessee pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of disallowance. 6. In the instant case, the assessee has undisputedly earned dividend income amounting to ₹ 200/-. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that since no dividend income has been earned by the assessee during the year under consideration, no expenditure has been incurred in relation thereto and as such no disallowance can be made and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 59 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) and also relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338. 7. While deciding the identical issue Hon ble High Court in CIT vs. Taikisha Engg. India Ltd. (supra) has held as under :- Thus, s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
