9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Counsel that there is no material change in the facts of the present case. However, during the course of arguments, submitted that even if the disallowance is to be computed as per the order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Oswal Woolen Mills (supra), the working submitted by the assessee cannot be accepted as correct without verifying the same by the AO. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted that the issue may be sent back to the AO for determining the disallowance considering the plea of the assessee that the issue involved is covered by the order of the Tribunal. The assessee has placed on record the working of proportionate disallowance after including the personal expenditure. Thus no reason to take a different view in this assessment year. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2010-11, we send this issue back to the AO for determining the disallowance on proportionate basis in accordance with the direction given by the coordinate Bench in the case of Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) or to restrict the disallowance to the amount computed in working furnished by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 A read with Rule 8 D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules), addition of ₹ 57, 26, 985/- on account of disallowance U/ s 36 (1)(iii) of the Act and addition of ₹ 5, 21, 583/- on account of disallowance on unpaid commission. Further the A. O. determined the book profit of the assessee at ₹ 205, 33, 02, 260/-. 3. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition on account of disallowance U/ s 14 A read with Rule 8 D of the Rules to the amount claimed as exempt U/ s 10 (34) of the Act, confirmed the addition of ₹ 57, 26, 985/- U/ s 36 (1)(i i i) of the Act. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: 1. a) That the worthy CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana erred in law and on facts in upholding the applicability of rule 8D in spite of fact that the appellant itself computed the disallowance on proportionate basis u/s 14A of the Act. Directions may be given to compute the disallowance u/s 14A on proportionate basis as held in appellant own case in Assessment Year 2010-11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments, the assessee furnished the working of the disallowance U/ s 14 A read with Rule 8 D of the Rules on proportionate basis contending that the AO has wrongly applied the Rule 8 D. The Tribunal after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition on account of disallowance computed by the AO u/ s 14 A read with Rule 8 D and directed the AO to restrict the addition to the working given by the assessee on proportionate basis. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the facts of the case and the issues involved in the aforesaid case are identical to the facts and the issues involved in the present case, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel invited our attention to the working of disallowance placed on record in the present case and submitted that since the working is in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal on identical set of facts in the case of Oswal Woolen Mills Vs ACIT aforesaid, the impugned order may be set aside and the AO may be directed to restrict the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, to proportionate amount computed by the assessee. The findings of the coordinate Bench read as under: - 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that the funds from which the investments were made were mixed funds. That the assessee was possessed of sufficient own/ interest free funds to meet the investment in question. That as per law laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bright Enterprises Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No. 224 of 2013) dated 24. 7.2015 (supra), wherein, it has been held that if there are interest free funds available to meet the investment, a presumption would arise that investment had been made out of the interest free funds generated or available with the company, therefore, no interest disallowance was attracted. It was also pleaded that the assessee had not incurred any expenses out of the administrative expenditure for the investment yielding dividend income. That the assessee made suo motu disallowance of administrative expenses incurred vis-a-vis total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidend 6014 1065 2. Operating income 6336 864325 3 % of dividend income 0.00168 4. Amount of expenses 556724538 5. Proportionate amount of disallowance of expensed to earn dividend 936183 Details of expenses a. Interest paid to others 21202161 b. Administrative expenses 130240267 c. Personal expenses and other allowances 405282110 556724538 7. None of the lower authorities have pointed out any defect in the computation of proportionate disallowance computed by the assessee except that certain part of the administrative expenses were not taken into consideration which has been taken into consideration in the computation made above. Even the assessee has claimed that it has not incurred any administrative expenses for earning of tax-exempt income. The Assessing Officer in this re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) has pointed out any defect in the working given by the assessee in computing suo motu disallowance except that a certain part of tax relating to the personnel expenditure and other allowances were not taken into consideration. In the working given before us, as reproduced above, whereby, the proportionate amount of disallowance of expenditure to earn dividend income has been computed at ₹ 9,36, 183/- by including the personnel expenditure and certain other expenses, as noted above. In view of this, the disallowance of administrative expenses is restricted to ₹ 9, 36, 183/-. However, the assessee will get the benefit/ set off at the suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee in the return of income at ₹ 1,33, 928/- and accordingly the addition is restricted to ₹ 8,02, 255/-. 8. In the said case assessee had raised the identical ground in its appeal before the Tribunal as the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, computed by the AO under Rule 8D of the Rules. In respect of disallowance under Rule 8D(ii), the contention of the assessee was that it had sufficient own interest free funds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in affirming the disallowance of interest amounting to ₹ 57,26,985/-out of CC account for purchase of fixed assets. The Ld. Counsel submitted that since the assessee had own sufficient funds in the shape of capital and reserves and internal accruals, the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the said addition. The ld. Counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Ind. Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) and Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. DCIT 394 ITR 449, Judgments of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bright Enterprise (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 381 ITR 107 (Pb.), CIT vs. Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (Pb.), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.), CIT vs. Max India Ltd 388 ITR 81 (P H) and the decisions of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Group Company M/ s Monte Carlo Fashion Ltd. ITA No. 1341/ Chd/ 2016 AY 2012 - 13. to substantiate his contention. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supporting the action of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee had made addition to f ixed assets amounting to ₹ 186. 80 Crore including plants and machinery a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
