9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. The assessee himself has computed expenditure attributable to exempt income more than the exempt income itself. Therefore, no further disallowance is called for. CIT(A), in our view, has rightly concluded the issue. We thus decline to interfere. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 76,44,797/- made by the AO. 3. None appeared for the assessee despite several notices.Accordingly, the matter is proceeded ex parte and in the absence of the assessee. 4. With the assistance of the learned DR for the Revenue, we find that the AO has computed disallowance of ₹ 89,50,116/- as performula prescribed under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules r.w.s. 14Aof the Act. It was fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2016 (Gujarat) andJoint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. We also note that Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vision Finstock Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 486 of 2017 judgment dated 31.07.2017 has once again expressed the similar view and held that disallowance of expenditure in terms of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
