9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, in terms of binding decision rendered in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] & CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.[2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] a presumption was to be drawn in assessee’s favor that the investments were made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. Therefore, interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) could not be held to be ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce already offered by the assessee was justified and therefore, additional disallowance as sustained by first appellate authority was to be deleted. - I.T.A. No.5484/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2019 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : Mahesh A. Rajora - Ld.AR For the Revenue : S.Abirama Karthikeyan, Ld. DR ORDER PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee earned exempt dividend income of ₹ 2,27,333/- and offered suo-moto disallowance of ₹ 42,572/- against the same. However, Ld. AO, by applying Rule 8D, worked at aggregate disallowance of ₹ 2.96 Lacs which comprised-off of interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) for ₹ 1.54 Lacs and expense disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) for ₹ 1.41 Lacs. The disallowance of ₹ 2.96 La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court rendered in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [366 ITR 505], a presumption was to be drawn in assessee s favor that the investments were made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. Therefore, interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) could not be held to be justified. We order so. 3.2 So far as the expense disallowance u/r 8D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
