9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving been brought to our notice, we uphold the order the of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance of bank charges Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - A.O. made the impugned disallowance on account of the fact that the assessee company had made investments in shares/mutual funds, the income from which was exempt from tax - CIT(Appeals), restricted part addition as disallowance made on account of interest as per rule 8D(2(ii) of the Income Tax Rules,1962, for the reason that the assessee had sufficient interest free funds of its own for making the investments. The disallowance on account of administrative expenses as per rule 8D(2)(iii) was however upheld - HELD THAT:- No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of a common order. For the sake of convenience we shall be dealing with facts in the case of I.T.A No.429/Chd/17 relating to assessment year 2011-12. I.T.A. No 429/Chd/2017 (A.Y 2011-12): 3. Ground no. 1 raised by the revenue reads as under: i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 25,24,786/- made on account of disallowance of Bank Charges. 4. The Revenue in the above ground has challenged the deletion of disallowance of bank charges of ₹ 25,240,786/- The main reason for making the impugned disallowance by the A.O. was that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. 2 raised by the Revenue reads as under: ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Saw. the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in restricting the addition of ₹ 2,86.58,780/- to ₹ 1.67,075/-made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and thereby allowing relief of ₹ 2, 84,91, 705/- to the assessee . 9. The aforesaid ground relates to the issue of disallowance of expenses made as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Briefly stated the A.O. made the impugned disallowance on account of the fact that the assessee company had made investments in shares/mutual funds, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -06 200607 when the cash accruals from the business of the company were to the tune of ₹ 37.08 Crores and ₹ 51.71 Crores which were sufficient for making the impugned investments of ₹ 34.65 Crores. Copies of financial statements of the said years were also filed. Based on the above facts the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we find, deleted the disallowance made following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. The said proposition has been reiterated by the Hon,ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. in ITA no.186 of 2013 (O M) vide order dt.06-0916. The Ld. DR has not controverted the aforestated facts before us nor has any contrary decision of the jurisdictional Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
