9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nonsatisfaction without adducing cogent reasons / elaborations as to why the methodology adopted by the assessee was not acceptable. Reliance could be placed on the recent decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. V/s CIT [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has categorically been held that recording of satisfaction is a pre-requisite before invoking disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus we delete the additional disallowance as made by Ld. AO in the quantum assessment order. The appeal stands allowed. - I.T.A. No.6733/Mum/2018, 6734/Mum/2018, 6735/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-15) - - - Dated:- 17-12-2019 - HON BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hand, submitted that it was conscious decision on the part of the assessee not to prefer any further appeal and therefore, the assessee was unable to make a case of sufficient cause which would warrant condonation of delay. However, considering the fact that the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was subject matter of disallowance for several years, the bench formed an opinion that the delay was to be condoned and the appeal was to be adjudicated on merits. We order so. 1.3 In the above background, we have already considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties, perused material placed on record and deliberated on decisions rendered by Tribunal in assessee s own case for different years. The Ld. AR has raised a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Rule 8D, computed expense disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) @0.5% of average investments which resulted into disallowance of ₹ 18.79 Lacs. After adjusting suo-moto disallowance of ₹ 2.21 Lacs as offered by the assessee, net disallowance thus worked out to be ₹ 16.57 Lacs. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that Ld. AO did not record objective and judicious satisfaction before proceeding to apply Rule 8D. However, disregarding the same, Ld. CIT(A), relying upon Tribunal s order in assessee s own case for AY 2010-11, ITA No. 589/Mum/2015 order dated 14/09/2016, restricted the disallowance to ₹ 10 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us with following grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of nonsatisfaction without adducing cogent reasons / elaborations as to why the methodology adopted by the assessee was not acceptable. Reliance could be placed on the recent decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. V/s CIT (2018 402 ITR 640) wherein it has categorically been held that recording of satisfaction is a pre-requisite before invoking disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. The pertinent observations of Hon ble Court were as under: - 41) Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
