9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue filed these three appeals. The assessee has also filed cross-objections in appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, which has been withdrawn by ld. AR of assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of all these appeals are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of power generation. For all these three assessment years, the assessee derived exempt income and made suo moto disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 5,00,045/- for assessment year 2012-13, Rs. 1,25,81,066/- for assessment year 2013-14 and Rs. 1,28,76,558/- for assessment year 2014-15. Assessing Officer, however, calculated disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act ("the Act") read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules ("the Rules") at Rs. 21,28,28,842/- for assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer did not make any disallowance. In so far as the disallowance for A.Y. 2012-12 u/r. 8D(2)(ii) is concerned, on verification of the details of expenditure debited in the accounts of assessee, ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee has submitted the details of expenditure debited in the accounts and that out of the total expenditure of Rs. 12,232.75 lakh a sum of Rs. 11,152.03 lakh is entirely relatable to its manufacturing/business activities of the appellant company, and therefore only Rs. 1,080.72 lakh may be allocated in accordance with s. 14A of the Act, and accordingly the appellant has computed Rs. 1,21,36,000/- as the amount which may be allocated as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules; that as regards the interest expenses, vide order s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith s. 14A of the Act, and accordingly the appellant has computed Rs. 66,34,106/- and Rs. 28,99,215/- respectively in the above two assessment years as the amount which may be allocated as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules; that the computation of the appellant submitted in the WS dt. 10.04.2017 is incorrect in as much as the disallowable expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 would be Rs. 2,12,04,095/- and Rs. 1,37,23,450/- respectively in the above two assessment years being 0.5% of the average value of investment of Rs. 274,46,90,000/- and Rs. 424,08,19,000/- respectively in the above two assessment years; that as regards the interest expenses, vide order sheet dt. 10.03.2017 the appellant's AR was asked to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) reached a factual conclusion that the interest expense incurred by assessee is not allocable to the exempt income, in the absence of any material to the contrary, we find it difficult to disturb the same. Further, learned CIT(A) applied the binding precedents to these facts. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the interest component u/r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. Though the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), the assessee had already suo moto disallowed the same and it does not require any interference. 9. Coming to the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to recompute the MAT payable by assessee after excluding the disallowance u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
