9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) dated 01.03.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is disallowance of ₹ 39,09,246/- on account of inadmissible expenses u/s.14A r.w.r.8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no exempt income has been earned during the year and therefore, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is permissible. The Ld. AR further submitted that whatever investment has been made, has been made through its own interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench or the Tribunal, Raipur regarding that issue has held and observed as under: "6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in present ground with respect to disallowance u/s. 14Aof the Act. It is an undisputed fact that on the investment made by the assessee, no exempt income has been earned during the year. We find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cortech Energy P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 97 (Gujarat) has held that when there is no claim for exempt income, Section 14A would have no application. We also find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014)90 CCH 81 (Delhi) has held that where no dividend income was earned by assessee, disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue therein, viz., broken period interest, no appeal has been preferred by the Revenue on the issue of invoking the principles laid down in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (Supra) in its application to Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal had not been decided by this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Supra). It arose and was so decided for the first time by this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. (Supra). Thus, there is no conflict as sought to be made out by the impugned order. Thus, impugned order has proceeded on a fundamentally erroneous basis as the ratio decidendi of the order in Godrej and Boyce manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Supra) had nothing to do with the rest of pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investment in tax free securities, it is presumed that it has been paid for out of the interest free funds. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the above submission made at the hearing on behalf of the Revenue. " 7. Before us Revenue has not pointed any contrary binding decision nor has demonstrated that the aforesaid decision has been set aside or overruled by higher judicial authority. Considering the totality of aforesaid facts, we are of view that in the present case no disallowance u/s. 14A us caked for. Thus, the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed." 3.2 Further, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tasx Vs. Oil Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
