9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the parties partially allowed the appeal thereby confirming certain additions and also gave relief on some other grounds. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), these cross appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue before us on the ground mentioned below;- Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we have decided to dispose of both the appeals through a common order. First of all we deal with appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No 1826/Mum/2015. The revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D by taking into consideration the actual indirect expenses., without appreciating the fact that the AO has properly recorded his satisfaction for invoking the provisions of Rule 8D and therefore since Rule 8D is invoked, the disallowance has to be worked out as per the formula prescribed therein and disallowance has to be worked out as per the formula prescribed therein and there is no scope for any deviati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l services' u/s 194J and thus not liable for deduction of tax at source relying on the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd Vs. DCIT [2001] 251 ITR 53(Mad) without appreciating the distinguishing fact that the system of credit card processing is not a simple and standard facility provided by the acquirer bank to all those willing to avail it for a fee." 8. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that if any technology or machine is developed by human beings and put to operation on auto - mode without involving much human intervention, then it cannot be treated as a technical service u/s 194J of the Act, without appreciating that such systems necessarily involve human intervention. 9. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 10. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. Ground No. 1 This ground is with regard to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act As per the facts of the case, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raft and/or loans are taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest-free funds are sufficient to meet the investments. In order to support its contention the Assessee Company relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd ( 313 ITR 340(Bom)). The Assessee Company also contended that the interest expenditure incurred by it during the year under consideration were to finance ongoing expansion projects, meet working capital requirements and to acquire specific capital assets. We have heard the counsels for both the parties on this ground and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Since facts of the case are exactly similar to the A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 for which we have already given our finding in order of A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, we hereby hold that in the case of the assessee, the provisions of Section14A r.w.r. 8D will not be applicable in regard to investments made in group concern i.e. subsidiary, joint venture, associate concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s raised the following grounds "1. DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A 1.1 The Learned Commission of Income - tax (Appeals) - 17, Mumbai ["Ld. CIT (A)"], erred in not deleting the disallowance made by the A.O and, instead, directing the A.O. ["the A.O."] to rework the disallowance of actual indirect expenditure attributable to the earning of dividend income. 1.2 It is submitted that in the fact and circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for and/or no such direction was called for. 2. ADDITION U/S. 115JB (2) 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in making disallowance of Rs. 1,67,335/- on account of interest paid on late payment of TDS, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such adjustment in the book profit was called for. 3. LIBERTY 3.1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above ground at the time of hearing." Ground Number 1. This ground raised by the assessee with regard to reduction in disallowance under Section 14A by the CIT(A). We have already adjudicated on this ground in ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
