9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. It would not amount to review of the order of CIT(A). It is well settled law that non-consideration of decision of Jurisdictional High Court is mistake apparent from record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, rightly contended that Ld.CIT(A) did not follow the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and shall have to rectify the mistake in his order in calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above decisions, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and matter in issue is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A)-18, New Delhi with direction to re-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctification application dated 16.11.2015 in the impugned order in which the assessee explained that the computation of disallowance was made by the AO vide para 7(c) of assessment order in which disallowance attributable to Rule 8D(2)(iii) i.e. 0.5% of average investment was computed at ₹ 9,08,306/- and average investment was worked out by taking the figure of investment at ₹ 19.58 crores and ₹ 16.74 crores. The assessee filed one letter dated 05.09.2011 showing that average value of investment comes to ₹ 1.46 crores only after those shares are to be taken into account on which tax exempt income was earned. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 24.03.2015 in the case of ACB India Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment that yield tax exempt income should be taken into consideration instead of total investment considered by Ld.CIT(A). In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra) in which it was held that "where the AO, instead of adopting average value of investment of income which was not part of total income i.e. value of tax exempt investment, chose to factor in total investment itself and CIT(A) even though noticed exact value of investment which yielded taxable income, did not correct error but chose to apply his own equity; the findings of ITAT and the lower authorities were rightly set aside." He has submitted that non-consideration of decision of Jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee submitted that the assessee never wanted for review of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee made a request for rectification in the order of Ld.CIT(A) which is apparent from record in calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) should decide the issue in accordance with the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 6. After considering the rival submissions and in the light of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra) and in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.(supra), we are of the view that there appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
