9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT, the Revenue has not objected to the claim of the assessee that no exempt income was earned during the years under consideration. Identical issue had come for adjudication before the ITAT Hyderabad in number of cases wherein the Bench observed that section 14A refers to disallowance of expenditure in relation to income which pre-supposes existence of income in the form of dividend as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the disallowance u/s 14A of ₹ 3,03,53,000/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring CBDT s Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share of Stock Brokers P Ltd [326 ITR 1], wherein it was held that he mandate of section 14A was to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm of dividend as otherwise section 14A cannot be pressed into service. In the following cases, the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench had taken an identical view. (i) DCIT vs. M/s. Modi Builders and Realtors Private Limited (ITA No.1167/Hyd/2017, dated 03.04.2017) (ii) Vinayak Steels Limited vs. ITO (ITA No. 103/Hyd/2017, dated 04.04.2018) and (iii) M/s. Kamadhenu Sukrit Pvt Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
