9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of making initial investment, assessee must have incurred expenses but when it is undisputed fact that no investment has been made during the year under investment and only dividend has been earned on the reinvestment of dividend earned in the earlier years and there was no intervention of human labour and mind, section 14A is not attracted - AO without bringing on record any evidence as to how and under what circumstances the expenses have been incurred in the given circumstances applied Rule 8D mechanically which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The ld. CIT (A) has also erred in confirming the addition made u/s 14A - So, disallowance made u/s 14A is ordered to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee TDS u/s 195 - asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter alia that :- 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax is wrong and erroneous both in fact and in law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 20,857/- under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 80 of Income Tax Rules 1962 as against nil disallowance by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,78,078 u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ground No.1 is general in nature, hence does not require any specific adjudication. GROUND NO.2 7. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned addition made on account of disallowance of ₹ 20,857/- contended that since the assessee has not incurred any expenses during the year under assessment, the addition is not sustainable because the assessee has earned income by way of dividend on investment in mutual funds invested in earlier years in which dividend received got automatically reinvested as per standing instructions given by the assessee at the time of initial investment. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relying upon the order passed by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A) contended that to earn the dividen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that assessee has made foreign remittance to AMR Research Inc. without deducting the tax u/s 195 of the Act. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that as per advice rendered by the tax auditor, the assessee was not required to deduct the tax at source in view of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Wipro Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 9 (Bang.). However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that the said decision rendered by the Tribunal has been overruled by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court cited as CIT vs. M/s. Wipro Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann.com and as such, this ground is liable to dismissed. 11. Undisputedly, assessee has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
