9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal is allowed reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and disallowance of ₹ 16,24,198/- is directed to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Disallowance of Provident Fund - assessee has deposited employer s contribution to the Provident Fund towards where the PF trust has made investments which are not permitted. AO did not considered this trust as recognized Provident Funds under Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- This issue is taken up by the assessee before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who in turn deleted the addition stating that since the trust is already registered and learned Commissioner of Income-tax has not revoked the registration of the trust , AO i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior period expenditure while computing book profit tax u/s 115JB of the Act. - ITA No. 2490/Del/2014, ITA No. 2959/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2016 - SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh.Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv For The Revenue : Sh. Trajanthan, Sr. DR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. Captioned cross appeals are preferred by the parties against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi dated 28.02.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has preferred an appeal on following grounds:- 1(a) That the learned CIT(A) erred , both on facts and in law in sustaining a disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) grossly erred in not allowing opportunity of being heard before treating ₹ 1,60,32,500/- as speculative loss as against business loss treated by the appellant. 3. That the Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of ₹ 2554/- towards interest on late payment of TDS without appreciating that it an allowable expenditure. 3. We first take up the appeal of the assessee. 4. Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is regarding non-allowing loss on account of forward cover of ₹ 1,60,32,500/-. The assessee during the course of hearing submitted that it does not want to press this ground, therefore same is dismissed. 5. This leaves us only ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee against the confirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot proper as assessee has interest free funds available with it more than the amount of investment. The ld AR took us to the balance-sheet where general funds of ₹ 182,52,72,626/- is available with the assessee as on 31.03.2010 and investment made by the assessee is ₹ 33,31,98,467/-. It was further submitted that the assessee has already made disallowance of ₹ 269428/-, therefore there cannot be in disallowance u/s 14A on account of interest. It was further submitted that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. It was submitted that exempt income of the assessee is only ₹ 1,65,792/- and the assessee himself has disallowed ₹ 2,69,428/- therefore no further disallowance can be imputed. 8. The ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contribution towards Provident Fund. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,29,10,000/- made by the AO u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 33,03,000/- made by the AO on account of Prior Period Expenses while calculating MAT. 12. The first grounds of appeal is against disallowance of Provident Fund of ₹ 28,87,804/-. 13. The brief facts of this grounds is that the assessee has deposited employer s contribution to the Provident Fund towards to the extent of ₹ 2887804/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed that the on partial disallowance confirmed by the order of CIT (A) assessee is in appeal and on deletion of the balance disallowance revenue is in appeal. As we have already held in while deciding appeal of the assessee relying on the decision of Honourable Jurisdictional High court in case of Joint Investments Private Limited V CIT [372 ITR 694] that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Accordingly we confirm the order of CIT (A) accordingly and held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income as per finding given in Ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee. Hence ground no 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.3 of the revenue is regarding deletion of disallowance 33,03,000/- by CIT (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
