9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fered disallowance of ₹ 38,000/-. We also found that most of the investments of the assessee are in group concerns which are required to be excluded from average investment while computing disallowance under Rule 8D. We direct the AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) after excluding the investment made in group concerns. We direct accordingly. Premium paid on medical insurance policy of Managing Director - Held that:- In the instant case the policy has been taken for the Managing Director of the Company who is a key personnel of the Company. However the terms of employment of Managing Director was not brought on record to substantiate the contention that premium so paid was for the benefit of company. Unless it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income, the assessee had sue-moto disallowed sum of ₹ 38,037/- u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D. While framing assessment u/s.143(3), AO disallowed interest and other expenditure amounting to ₹ 61,14,053/- u/s.14A, on the plea that same were incurred for earning the exempt income. 5. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance so made by the AO against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Learned AR drawn our attention to the investment made by the assessee which was in its subsidiary companies. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that assessee was having its own capital and free reserves much more than the investment so made, accordingly relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Bom) 3. HDFC Bank vs. Dy. CIT [383 ITR 529 (Bom) 11. In view of the above, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance on account of interest made u/s.14A. 12. With regard to the other disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii), we found that assessee himself has offered disallowance of ₹ 38,000/-.We also found that most of the investments of the assessee are in group concerns which are required to be excluded from average investment while computing disallowance under Rule 8D, in view of the following judicial pronouncements. 1) Cheminvest Ltd. v CIT [378 ITR 33 (Del)/ 281 CTR 447 (Del)] 2) Garware Wall Ropes Limited v Addl. CIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012) 3) M/s JM Financial Limited v Addl. CIT (ITA No: 4521/Mum/2012) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
