9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that from AY 2008-09 disallowance has to be mandatorily be calculated as per Rule 8D?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the decision in the case of M/s. HDFC Ltd is not applicable since the same has been rendered keeping in mind the investment of Bank and hence Bank specific?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not satisfied, Ld. AO, applying Rule 8D, computed aggregate disallowance of Rs. 108.38 Lacs which comprised-off of interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) for Rs. 99.52 Lacs and expense disallowance at 0.5% of average investments u/r 8D(2)(iii) for Rs. 8.86 Lacs. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 29/12/2017 wherein Ld. first appellate authority while confirming expense disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii), deleted interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) in view of the fact that assessee's own funds were more than the investments and therefore, no disallowance was required in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 505). The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of fact. The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. The Tribunal has also followed its own order for Assessment Year 2002-03. In view of the above findings, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in regard to the first question. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question. Secondly, this issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order so far as the disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
