9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire amount. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted disallowance would be much more than the claim of exempt income. As relying on Joint Investments P. Ltd [ 2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] this is patently incorrect. Maximum amount that could have been disallowed u/s.14A and nothing more. Assessee is given relief to this extent. - Shri. Abraham P. George, Accountant Member Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT (A) did not meet with any success. 04. Before me, Ld. AR submitted that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act at the best could never be more than the exempt income. In support of this he relied on the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments P. Ltd v. CIT [ITA.117/2015, dt.25.02.2015]. 05. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities. 06. We have per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CIT (A) and the ITAT. The third, and in the opinion of this court, important anomaly which we cannot be unmindful is that whereas the entire tax exempt income is ₹ 48,90,000/-, the disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110% of that sum, i.e., ₹ 52,26,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of a portion of the tax exempt income and could not swallow the entire amount. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted disallowance would be much more than the claim of exempt income. In view of the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court mentioned above, this is patently incorrect. I therefore hold that maximum amount that could have been disallowed u/s.14A of the Act, is ₹ 67,074/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
