9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd., ( 2017 (5) TMI 1160 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [ 2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] In view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, the question of law, as proposed by the Revenue, cannot be termed as the substantial question of law arising out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 11 of 2020 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 12 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2020 - MR. J.B. PARDIWALA AND MR. BHARGAV D. KARIA JJ. Appearance: MR. VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act, 1961, made disallowance under Section 14A of the Act amounting to ₹ 1,27,92,81,434/- with respect to interest expenses and administrative expenses. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, making disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) restricted the disallowance so far as it relates to the interest expenses are concerned. The CIT(A), while restricting the disallowance to ₹ 6.06,477/-, has observed as under; 6.3 I have considered the appellant's submission, the order of CIT-I, Vadodara's order u/s. 263 and the observations made by the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied from proposed computation of disallowance as per Rule 8D, the disallowance would come to ₹ 6,06,477/- as against the proposed disallowance. 6.5.2 Thus the investments made in the opening investments yielding exempt income, has been held by my Predecessor as having been made by the appellant out of its own interest free funds and accordingly he has deleted the disallowances u/s.14A made out of interest paid by the appellant on account of such investments. Accordingly no disallowance on account of such investments can be made out of interest paid by the appellant in the current assessment year also. 6.5.3 So far the investment made during the current year amounting to ₹ 85,00,000/- is concerned, the appellant has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Liquid Super Debt fund Daily dividend Rs. Invested Yes N.A. 4,30,00,000 10,0079 No., of Units MTM Date NAV on Exit Amt. Realized Gain/ (Loss) Statement of A/c. 4296606 11/11/08 10.01 4,30,00,000 - Copy 12 Such investments was of ₹ 4,30,00,000/-. The appellant has not filed any details in this regard to show that such investments were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of computing total assets, no such netting off of current liabilities should be made. This contention of the appellant is correct. Accordingly, the AO is directed to compute the average assets without netting off the current liability from current assets. 6. Both, the Revenue as well as the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the CIT (A). The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, passed the following order; 32. Both the appeals give rise to common issue of disallowance under s.14A of the Net in pursuance of assessment order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. With the assistance of the learned AR for the assessee, we note that the ACO made, disallowance towards prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, the question of law, as proposed by the Revenue, cannot be termed as the substantial question of law arising out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. 9. So far as the ax Appeal No.12 of 2020 is concerned, the CIT (A) has followed the ratio laid down by his predecessor in its order wherein the predecessor had upheld the disallowance under Section 14A. Hence, the CIT (A) has applied the same method to the case on hand and upheld the disallowance. The CIT (A), in para-6.5.3 of its order, held thus; Moreover, my predecessor in his appellate order for A.Y.2008-09 has upheld the disallowance u/s.14A out of administrative expenses. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
