9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29th January, 2013 of the learned first appellate authority. The first ground raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the disallowance of expenditure amounting to ₹ 13,45,968/- under the head interest computed as per rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Income Tax Act incurred on earning the exempted dividend income by follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 23.99 crores respectively, whereas the investment in shares at 31/03/07 31/03/08 were only of ₹ 2.80 crores 6.14 crores. Thus, it is seen that the appellant s own fund is more than the investment made, which is generating exempt income. It is also noticed that the A.O. could not establish a nexus between the interest expenditure and the investment made. As it is evident from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances and also keeping reliance on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. supra), the disallowance of proportionate interest is not warranted u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D(ii) of the IT Rules and the said disallowance of ₹ 13,45,986/- made by the A.O. is deleted. 2.3 There is an uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that own fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the learned Assessing Officer made disallowance of prior period expenses without appreciating that the liability in respect of these expenses was crystalised during the year. The learned first appellate authority has already discussed the facts and various decisions including from Hon ble Apex Court/High Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
