9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties, we find that none of the authorities below has controverted the facts put forward by assessee. Obviously when dividend is directly credited to fund by way of credit entries and then such credit by fund does not require any effort by assessee which is the major portion of dividend. Other Amount is directly collected by bank through e-transfer example of which is placed on record at pages 3-4. Besides, the authorities below have not indicated any specific amount/item which is considered as related to above income. Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in stating about the decisions for investment that too on a probabilistic view but not for exempt income more so when funds etc. itself provided sufficient services as explained by assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Ltd. [2015] 54 taxmann.com 109 (Delhi) C) Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. v. [2012] 27 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi) D) Eicher Motors Ltd. v CIT (2017) 86 Taxmann.com 49 (DEL) 11. In the case of HT MEDIA, AO had invoked 14A almost on the same basis i.e. after stating that explanation on no expenditure is no acceptable and that making, continuing, exiting from investment etc. are coordinated management decision and so expenditure is embedded in indirect expenses( from para 36) and so s.14A invoked. Hon'ble court after relying on Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 394 ITR 449(SC) held that AO failed to record proper satisfaction. In the case of Taikisha Engineering, hon'ble court has relied on hon'ble Bombay HC decision in above case of Godrej repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance is also against the principle of consistency in the absence of any facts.
14. Grounds 2 and 3 are allowed and addition of ₹ 8,88,490/- is hereby deleted."
4. Ld. D.R. however, relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of same assessee for the A.Y. 2009-2010 vide order dated 20.11.2017. Following the order of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
6. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
