9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 27-8-2018 - SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR For The Revenue : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR ORDER Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Sambalpur dated 4.9.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 56,95,726/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not shown any amount in column 17(L) of the audit report as amount disallowable u/s.14A. In the balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee has not disallowed any expenditure u/s.14A of the Act. According to him, the assessee is having investment of ₹ 10,67,74,909/- as at the year ended on 31.3.2011. Therefore, he made disallowance u/s.14A r.w. 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 of ₹ 56,95,726/-. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the same holding that the disallowance u/s.14A has to be made even where the assessee has not earned any exempt income, for which, he relied on the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.2.2014. 10. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of IL FS Energy Development Ltd (supra) submitted that no disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A of the Act can be made where no exempt was ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR (AT) 86 (Delhi) [SB]. The court also referred to three decisions of different High Courts which have decided the issue against Revenue. The first was the decision in CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. (decision dated April 2, 2014, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in I. T. A. No. 970 of 2008) since reported in [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P H) which in turn referred to two earlier decisions of the same court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P H) and CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P H). The second was of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2014] 223 Taxmann 130 (Guj) ; [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) and the third of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
