9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicability of Rule 8D(2)(iii) where the specification of the nature of the expenditure is available and such expenditure can be reasonably identified toward revenue from taxable operations and revenue from income which is exempt. Assessee is entitled for the deduction of employee benefit expenses to the tune of 2/3rd such expenses. Accordingly the assessee gets relief in part. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. MAT Computation u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- The claim of the assessee that no adjustment i s called for while computing book profit is violative of Explanation 1(f) referred to Section 115JB of the Act and thus cannot entertained. No blanket exemption can re ad in the special bench decision in Vireet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the Act ) dt.28/01/2016 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-2014. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 67,86,490 out of the total disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 1,85,75,239 U/S.14A read with Rule 8D. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of ₹ 67,86,490 while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act on the sole ground that disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule-8D was being sustained as referred to in the foregoing ground of appeal. 3. On the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the disallowance of the expenses under rule 8D cannot exceed the actual expenses incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) considered only those expenses which were relatable to such dividend income and accordingly worked out the disallowance of ₹ 67,86,490/- including the employee benefit expenses. Thus the learned CIT (A) was pleased to grant relief to the assessee in part. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 142 and submitted that the Hon ble ITAT in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 2006/Ahd/2016 vide order dated 04-07-2019 was pleased to delete the disallowance m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- as per the tabulation reproduced in the CIT(A) s order. Both Re venue and assessee are aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the CIT(A). The Revenue seeks disallowance of the amount as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) whereas the assessee has disputed the analysis of the CIT(A). It is the case of the assessee that itemized expenditure can be demonstrably relatable to various segment of taxable income. For instance, the disallowance of ₹ 61,565/- made by the CIT(A) on account of insurance expenses incurred was paid for rented properties and thus has no relation to the exempt income. Likewise, the personnel expenses of ₹ 17,00,616/- is also cl aimed by the assessee to be towards timely collection of rent expenses. The assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in part. 7.1 In view of the above and respectfully following the proposition laid down by the ITAT in its own case of the assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled for the deduction of employee benefit expenses to the tune of 2/3rd such expenses. Accordingly the assessee gets relief in part. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 8. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 67,86,490/- while computing the income under the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act. 9. At the outset we note that, the similar issue was also raised by the assessee in its own case in the assessment year 2012-13 which was decided by this Tribunal in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld as under: 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and considering section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2, it is held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section (2) applies, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing the income referred to in section 28 with respect to such sum credited by the assessee to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in explanation to section 36(1)(va). Consequently, it is held that the learned tribunal has erred in deleting respective disallowances being employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
