9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. So far as the balance amount of ₹ 1,83,150/- is concerned, we find that ITAT in the assessee s own case for the A.Ys.2013-14 and 2012-12 [ 2019 (4) TMI 1852 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has given further relief at 20% on the balance amount of the disallowance. Therefore, since facts are similar in the present year also, we would take this line of finding recorded by the Coordinate Bench, and allow similar relief to the assessee in this year also. Accordingly, we allow further relief to the extent of 20% on the balance sum of ₹ 1,83,150/-, and allow this ground partly. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D - as explained by the assessee that the investments had been made out of own funds - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT Vs. Corrtec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2016 passed for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Assessee has taken two grounds of appeal. They read as under: 1. On the facts of the case the learned C.I.T.(A) on law as well as on facts of the case in law in confirming the disallowance deduction of ₹ 332629/- out of ₹ 607354/- in respect of sale of seeds claimed u/s 80P(2)(IV)of the I.T. Act, 1961. (607354-274725) On the facts of the case the learned C.I.T(A) failed to appreciate the facts that the said disallowance is uncalled and unwarranted Your appellant therefore prays in the interest of justice to delete the above disallowance of ₹ 332629/- out of ₹ 607354/- in respect of sale of seeds claimed u/s 80P(2)(IV)of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee on account of sale, as the assessee was acting as commission agent, and the members would lift the seeds directly from the premises of the assessee. However, the AO was of the view that there could not be any income without expenses, and therefore, deduction under section 80P(2) should be allowed on net profits after debiting expenses and not gross profit. Accordingly, the ld.AO restricted the deduction by estimating indirect expenditure at the rate of 40%, which worked out to ₹ 2,74,725/- i.e. [₹ 6,07,754/- minus ₹ 1,49,749/- (excess amount claimed by the assessee) minus ₹ 1,83,150/- being 40% of ₹ 4,57,875/- shown by the assessee as gross profit). Against this disallowance of ₹ 3,32,629/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce facts are similar in the present year also, we would take this line of finding recorded by the Coordinate Bench, and allow similar relief to the assessee in this year also. Accordingly, we allow further relief to the extent of 20% on the balance sum of ₹ 1,83,150/-, and allow this ground partly. 6. In the second ground, the assessee has challenged confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 4,40,120/- under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. As the facts emerge from the record, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had earned dividend income of ₹ 16,362/- which is exempt under section 10(34) of the Income Tax act. The assessee did not make any disallowance under section 14A r. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quent assessment years 2013-14 and 2012-13. Assessee has submitted before the Revenue authorities that it has sufficient paid up share capital and reserves and surplus of ₹ 20,23,12,982/-, and the AO has not found any investment made out of loan/borrowed funds, and therefore, provisions of section 14A r.w.rule 8D was not applicable to the assessee s case. The assessee has claimed exempt income of ₹ 16,362/- only, and therefore, presumption of expenditure calculated on the basis of formula given in Rule 8D is not justified. Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy P.Ltd., 45 taxmann.com 116 (Guj) has held that if there is no exempt income claimed by the assessee, then there could not be any d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
