9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial to show that assessee had in fact had incurred expenditure for earning the exempt income in these two assessment years, no disallowance could have been resorted to by the AO u/s. 153A - We find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR for assessee and allow the appeal by directing deletion of addition made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. AY 2016-17 - limited prayer of the Ld. AR of the assessee is that the disallowance made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) may be restricted to 0.5% of the investment made in the dividend yielding scrips - HELD THAT:- We find force in the contention of the Ld. AR and this Tribunal have been consistently taking such a view after the decision in REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT [ 2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther he contended that it is trite law that in the case of unabated assessments, the addition/disallowance can be resorted to by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act only on the basis of incriminating materials and since there is no whisper in the assessment order about any incriminating material warranting any disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D, according to him, no disallowance u/s. 14A can be legally fastened on the assessee. In the light of this contention, first of all we take up both AYs. 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since facts are same, we take up AY 2013-14 as lead case and its result will follow for AY 2014-15. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee carries on the business of transportation. Assessee had filed its return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asked to explain the reasons for non-disallowance, which however the assessee was unable to do. Accordingly, the Ld. AO invoked Rule 8D(2)(ii) 8D(2)(iii), and worked out a disallowance of ₹ 3,19,768/-. In appeal, it has been argued by the appellant that only dividend yielding instruments ought to be taken for calculation, which is not being disputed. However, the appellant, who has full knowledge of these matters and not given any working solution to help arrive at the amount of disallowance to be made in its case. Therefore, I hold the view that the method applied by the Ld. AO does not warrant any interference, and the disallowance of ₹ 3,19,769/- stands confirmed. The ground is therefore dismissed. Aggrieved, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminating material unearthed during the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. He also relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del.), DCIT Vs. Rekha Jhunjhunwala (ITA No. 3824/Mum/2016 dated 17.01.2018 and DCIT Vs. Ashok Jasraj Jain (ITA No. 5718/Mum/2016 dated 23.05.2018. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities and urged before the bench not to interfere with the order of the authorities below. 5. After hearing both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that both AYs i.e. AYs. 2013-14 and 2014-15 were not pending before the AO on the date of search on 01.12.2015 and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
