9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rning dividend income. Once the Rule 8D of the Rules has been made applicable, the disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) is automatic and there is no option left with the Assessing Officer except to estimate the disallowance as per rules. In view of the detailed findings of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute, we do not find any error in the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. Disallowance carry forward of business/unabsorbed depreciation in absence of evidences - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee has already filed rectification application before the Assessing Officer which was pending. We agree with the finding of the learned CIT(A) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 8D of the Rules for purposes of making disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that under section 14A of the Act and only expenses having direct/ proximate nexus with earning of the dividend income could be disallowed. 2. That the CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in not allowing set off of the brought forward business loss amounting to ₹ 95,88,851/- and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,40,47,358/- returned by the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The appellant crave leave to add, to alter, to amend or vary the above grounds of appeal before or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve. 4. Before us, the learned DR appeared through Video Conferencing facility and relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the submission of the learned DR and perused the relevant material on record. 6. In ground no. 1, the assessee has raised the issue of disallowance of ₹ 6,50,090/- under Section 14A of the Act. 6.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee had made investments in units of mutual funds amounting to ₹ 15 crores. In the immediately preceding year also, the assessee has sold units of mutual funds amounting to ₹ 4 crores. In the year under consideration, the assessee received dividend amounting to ₹ 1,23,14,237/- on mutual funds, which is clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been earned by appellant. Even a cursory look at the annual report, and attendant notes to accounts and details of other expenses will belie the claim of appellant that no expenditure has been incurred w.r.t earning of dividend income. It s like-a person saying that services of a General Manger (finance) were not required for monitoring of financial activity/ income relating to dividends as investments once made need not-he monitored/ reviewed. It s not the-case of-the appellant assessee that the decision to sell/ invest in mutual funds was not taken during the year under consideration. Once the investment/relating decision (whether to hold/ sell/ acquire/ monitor) is taken, it cannot be then canvassed by assessee, as is being done, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect relating to MF-Foremost of all to decide to invest in MF or otherwise is itself an application of time / money/ employee cost on decision making activity related to investments per se, of which investment in MF is a subset thereof. At this very stage itself, at threshold, the plea of appellants must fail logically. Further that, in earlier years, there was no 143(3) of appellant case and hence this being first year, the matter has been aptly appreciated by AO. 6.2 We find that the contention of the assessee that, no expenditure has been incurred for earning income, has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that some man power must have been required for monitoring financial activity or earning of income relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
