9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue in assessee s favour has given a finding that AO has applied the provisions of Rule 8D mechanically and has not demonstrated as to how the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee was incorrect or inadequate. He has further given a finding that the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee was in accordance with the decision of Jurisdiction High Court. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No. 1916/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 12-8-202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.847/16-17/CIT(A)-4) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Employee Stock Option Scheme Compensation amounting to ₹ 1,46,46,000/-. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D, amounting to ₹ 1,59,43,221/-? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) noted that identical issue arose in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 2012-13 and his predecessor had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He also noted that the issue was also covered in assessee s favour by the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. He thus following the order of his predecessors, allowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO. 8. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to deletion of disallowance of Employee Stock Option Scheme Compensat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order has not demonstrated as to how the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee was incorrect or inadequate. He has also given a finding that AO had mechanically applied the provision of Section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act. He has further noted that AO has not identified any expenditure which was relatable to earning of exempt income and that AO had applied the provision of Rule 8D mechanically. CIT(A) further noted that suo moto disallowance made by the assessee was after considering those investments which had yielded dividend income and that the stand taken by the assessee was in accordance with the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs ACIT (2015)(4) TMI 224 and various other decisions. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
