9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that in order to apply the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D, there should be an actual receipt of income which is not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year or in other words section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Since, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the law laid down there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed this ground of appeal of the revenue. Additional depreciation u/s 32 (1)(iia) - plants and machinery acquired and installed in the preceding year - Asset put to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of manufacturing packaging material, printing cylinders and metalized film, filed its returns of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of ₹ 53,22,77,335/-. The assessee also filed revised return declaring the total income of ₹ 53,17,08,404/-. Since, the case was selected for scrutiny, the AO issued notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act. In response to the said notices, the authorized representative of the assessee (AR) appeared before the AO and submitted the details called for. It was noticed that the assessee company had made investment of ₹ 5,51,40,000/- as non-current investment. Since, the assessee had not made suo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following effective grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of an amount of ₹ 8,39,099/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D with regard to the investment made by the assessee in the equity shares of ICM Packaging Pvt. Ltd. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the additional depreciation of ₹ 4,85,99,280/- u/s 32(1)(iia) of the I.T. Act, pertaining to Plants Machineries acquired and installed in the immediately preceding year but were put to use for less than 180 days in that year. 5. As regards, the Ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Hon ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Delhi has held that in order to apply the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D, there should be an actual receipt of income which is not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year or in other words section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Since, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the law laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court discussed above, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed this ground of appeal of the revenue. 8. So far as Ground No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COSMO Films Ltd. 139 ITD 628 (Del). 3. ACIT Vs. Sil Investment Ltd. 54 SOT 54 (Del). 4. Indian Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai ITAT Mumbai Bench I Mumbai. 5. CIT Vs. M/s Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. dated 04.01.2016 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, ITA No. 590 of 2015 (380 ITR 423) 6. CIT Vs. M/s Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. dated 24.11.2015 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, ITA No. 268/2014. In view of the above, this ground of appeal is allowed. 11. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble Karnatak High Court has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. In the said case the assessee had acquired and installed new plant and m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
