9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Amount of disallowance as discussed above is not warranted in the present facts and circumstances. As such, the amount of the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income Tax Rules cannot exceed the amount of disallowance made by the assessee i.e. 29,35,81,617.00 in the income tax return. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the AO in the case of the assessee which was subsequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Similarly, we also confirm the deletion as made by the learned CIT-A in the appeal of the Revenue. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng adopted by appellant. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. The Assessee has also raised the additional ground of appeal vide letter dated 9th September 2019 which reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, following the ratio of Hon'ble SC in the case of Pr CIT V State Bank of Patiala reported in (2018) 99 taxmann.com 286, the disallowance u/s.14A should not exceed the exempt income earned by assessee of ₹ 11,83,96,894/-. Accordingly, Hon'ble ITAT may direct the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance upto ₹ 11,83,96,894/-." In Revenue's appeal, i.e. ITA No.2806/Ahd/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exempted income as per the provisions of rule 8D of Income Tax Rule as detailed under: S. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Direct expenses 2,151.00 2. Interest expenses 37,45,60,672.00 3. Administrative expenses 15,19,39,060.00 Total 52,65,01,883.00 Less: the amount already disallowed 29,35,81,617.00 Balance amount to be disallowed 23,29,20,266. 00 In view of the above, the AO disallowed the sum of ₹ 23,29,20,266.00 under the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rules and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has restricted the amount of disallowance to ₹ 1,38,04,106.00 and deleted the balance amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made. In the process tribunal relied on the decision of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 in which also the Court had observed that where the assessee did not make any claim for exemption, section 14A could have no application." 6.1. We also find support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala reported in 99 Taxmann.com 26 wherein the SLP was dismissed involving the identical facts and circumstances. 6.2. In view of the above, we hold that the amount of disallowance as discussed above is not warranted in the present facts and circumstances. As such, the amount of the disallowance under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
