2018 (3) TMI 1902

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. [ 2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . The net effect of these decisions is that the disallowance u/s 14A gets restricted to the extent of exempt income, even if the provisions of the section are attracted. In view of the above precedents, which are squarely applicable to the facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act ). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee declared investments of ₹ 53.51 crore in its balance sheet as at the end of the year and exempt dividend income of ₹ 4,30,621/-. No disallowance was offered u/s 14A. Invoking the provisions of Rule 8D read with section 14A, the Assessing Officer computed disallowance at ₹ 3,80,01,842/- in three parts, namely .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... #39;ble ITAT is justified in law to hold that the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income in the absence of any such restriction being there in the relevant section or Rule? 5. The Hon'ble High Court did not admit the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the aforesaid question is not a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal of the Depart .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X