9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court, Revenue filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd. [2018 (12) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT] after considering the decisions of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], Cheminvest Vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and other decisions has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. In the present case, since assessee has not earned any exempt income from dividends, no disallowance is called for in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1288/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2019 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dt.11.02.2014 is not in line with the provisions of the Act and judicial view in this regard and as such must be held to be bad-in-law. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the Ground No.4 stated in para 5 of his order and confirming the disallowance u/s 14A without disposing of the said ground. 5. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the facts of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in MAXOPP Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (402 ITR 640) and CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Mody, (115, ITR 519) were distinguishable and consequently erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A relying upon the said decision. 6. That the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 dated 11.02.2014. He thereafter worked out the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules at ₹ 2,66,965/- and disallowed the same. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that since assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is called for. In support of her contention that when no exempt income is earned, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, she relied on the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. State Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) has held that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has to be restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not at a higher figure. We find that against the aforesaid order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Revenue filed S.L.P. before the Hon ble Apex Court and the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court. We further find that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders Construction (P) Ltd., (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 167 (Del) after considering the decisions of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640, Cheminvest Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 and other decisions has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
