9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the case of Joint Investment (2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT) that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the dividend income earned is cogent. No contrary decision of jurisdictional High Court in this regard has been produced before me. The decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej 314. Appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment, it was seen from perusal of the balance sheet that the appellant had made investments income from which was exempt from payment of tax. It was observed that during the year, the appellant had earned exempt income by way of dividend of ₹ 314/-. However, it was noted that the appellant had not made any disallowance u/s.14A in its computation of income. The A.O. took the view that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT in ITA No.117/2015 vide order dated 25.2.2015 for the proposition that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Furthermore, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Chem Invest Ltd. for the proposition that when no exempt income has been received, no disallowance u/s 14A is required. Further lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced upon the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Joint Investment (supra) that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the dividend income earned is cogent. No contrary decision of jurisdictional High Court in this regard has been produced before me. The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce, in no way dispute this proposition. 8. I accordingly hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
