9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, namely, Shriram Venture Ltd., formerly known as Shriram Industrial Holdings Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of investments. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 30th November, 2013 declaring loss of Rs. 6,44,20,867/-. The return of income was revised on 27th March, 2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,09,910/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer ('A.O.' in short) vide order dated 31st December, 2016 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 92CA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') at total income of Rs. 11,20,24,769/-. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the CIT(A), which is against the Revenue, the Revenue is in appeal before us in I.T.A. Nos.3059 & 3060/Chny/2017 for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 5. Let's take up the Revenue's appeals first. The Revenue has raised similar grounds for both the assessment years which are as follows:- 1.The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A under Rule 8D on the following lines. a)After excluding the investments in foreign entities. b)After excluding investments in subsidiary companies. c)After excluding investment in shares and mutual funds from which dividend income is not earned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 6. The Revenue challenges the correctness of finding of the CIT(A) setting aside the matter to the A.O. and directing the A.O. to consider the disallowances after excluding the investments in foreign entities and exclude investment subsidiary companies and investments which had not earned the exempt income and also the finding of the CIT(A) that the amount of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act should not be added back to the book profits for the purpose of computing the taxable liability under Section 115JB of the Act. 7. We find that the finding of the CIT(A) is correct to the extent of directing the A.O. to exclude the investments in foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the CIT(A). 9. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The assessee has raised similar grounds in both the appeals which read as under:- 1. The order of the CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming part of the disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant is in the business of investment promotion and the investments were not made for earning dividend income but only as strategic investment. Therefore, no disallowance u/s.14A.r.w.Rule 8D is attracted. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance u/s.14A made by the appellant of Rs. 72,77,740/- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
