9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,63,08,773/- u/s. 14A ignoring the fact that the Department has not accepted the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd. vs DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom.). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 40a(ia) r.w.s. 194H as worked out by the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix as clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,63,08,773/- u/s 14A for the purpose of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bay High Court in ITA No. 702/2017 dated 22.07.2019 , we find that an identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Court in favour of the assessee in the earlier year by observing and holding as under :- "4. Coming to second and third questions, the same emanates from the disallowance sought to be made by Revenue under section 14A of the Act. The Tribunal in the impugned judgement, came to the conclusion that the assessee had not earned any exempt income and there is, therefore, no question of disallowance under section 14A that would arise. The Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 5. In view of such facts, we find no error in the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n decided on identical facts in favour of the assessee. The operative part of the said order is reproduced hereunder :- "2. The respondent assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act. The issues arise in relation to the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The first question pertains to disallowance under section 40a(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the act') on the ground that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had deducted tax at source in terms of section 194H of the Act while making certain payments. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. Firstly, that the order under section 201 of the Act was passed holding the assessment to be in default of deduction of tax at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
