9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA MRS MAUNA M BHATT FOR THE APPELLANT ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No.932/Ahd/2014 for the A.Y. 2010 11. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court : [A] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 10,78,591/ made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest expenses under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t question is concerned as proposed by the Revenue, it is with respect to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest expenses under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(ii) of the Act. As regards the first question, the findings recorded by the Tribunal is as under : 17. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issue for adjudication before us relates to disallowance u/s.14A for the proportionate interest computed under Rule 8D(2) (ii) of the I.T.Rules. Interest disallowance of ₹ 10.78 lacs, ₹ 10.96 lacs and ₹ 35.20 lacs for Assessment years 2010 11 to 2012 13 respectively, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on finding that the appellant had Net Interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Noted that in the Assessee's case the interest income was more than interest expense and thus the Assessee was having net Positive interest income and therefore the same cannot be considered for disallowance and for which he placed reliance on the decision of Kolkatta Tribunal in the case of (Trading Apartment Limited and the decision of Tribunal in the case Morgan Stanley India Securities Private Limited. He however considered the administrative expenses to be 0.5 of the average investments and disallowed the same. 8. Before us the Revenue could not bring any material on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A). we therefore find no reason to interfere the order of CIT(A). Thus dismissed. In the instant case, the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
