9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation portion of the assessment order, he himself has reduced the disallowance of ₹ 2,72,248/- out of disallowance computed on the basis of Rule 8D. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has not examined the correctness of the claim of the assessee of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. In absence of recording of dissatisfaction on the correctness of the claim of the assessee of expenditure in relation to exempt income, which is a prerequisite for invoking the Rule 8D of the Rules, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, invoking Rule 8D of the Rules. No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute and accordingly, we uphold th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd export of readymade garments. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 15.10.2010, declaring total income of ₹ 9,41,49,654/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short the Act ] was issued and complied with. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed dividend income of ₹ 2,68,65,803/- and after considering the submissions of the assessee, made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rule, 1962 (for short the Rule ) of ₹ 67,81,653/- after reducing the disallowance of ₹ 2,72,248/- made suo-motu by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T f2016l 76 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi), where Hon ble Delhi High Court held that where Assessing Officer after carrying out elaborate analysis and following steps enacted in statute, had determined amount of expenditure incurred for earning tax exempt income, merely because he did not expressly record his dissatisfaction about assessee's calculation, his conclusion could not be rejected. 2 Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 (SC)/[2017] 247 Taxman 361(SC)/[2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 121 (SC) where Hon ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer after carrying out elaborate analysis and following steps enacted in statute, had determined amount of expenditure incurred for earnin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5JB justified .[S. 115JB] 7. NYK Line India Ltd. v. ACIT T175 TTJ 180 /132 DTR 71 where Hon ble ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of expenditure - Exempt income- Disallowance of 5% expenditure on manpower was held to be justified (AY. 2007-08 , 2008-09) 8. Vipin Malik Vs.ACIT (45 ITR 589) Where Hon ble ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of expenditure - Exempt income No disallowance was made by the assessee- Invoking the provision read with rule 8D(2)(iii) was held to be justified [ R.8D ] (AY 200910). 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the finding of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and submitted that in view of no dissatisfaction as to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
