9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o basis for disallowing the consequential benefit on WDV. Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of 14A - Assessee argued AO without recording any satisfaction as to what was the exempt income and the computation of disallowance made by the assessee is not correct - CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income following the decision of earlier years and the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court - HELD THAT:- Since the aforesaid decision is based on the principle laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. Disallowance on account of club expenditure - HELD THAT:- AO h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing of depreciation of ₹ 4,34,13,420/-. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 55,53,884/- u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Act. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the addition of ₹ 6,94,236/- on account of club services and facilities. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the addition of ₹ 16,717/- u/s 36(l)(va) on account of late payment of employees' provident fund. 2. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the issues involved are squarely covered by the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r AY 2013-14 also, the assessee has claimed depreciation on the intellectual property asset and accordingly disallowance of ₹ 5,78,84,559/- was made. Considering the facts and circumstances and following the assessment order for AY 2013-14, a 25% depreciation on ₹ 17,36,35,678/- (i.e difference of ₹ 23,15,38,237/- (-) ₹ 5,78,84,559/-) is disallowed. Hence, the disallowance of ₹ 4,34,13,420/- has been made and returned income of the assessee. 6. In the first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) had followed the order for assessment year 2012-13, wherein this issue was examined in detail which is as under :- 'After carefully considering all the above facts and circumstances, it is held that the disallowance of depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed. 8. So far as disallowance of 14A of ₹ 55,53,844/-, we find that the AO has made disallowance of ₹ 62,65,891/- made by the AO without recording any satisfaction as to what was the exempt income and the computation of disallowance made by the assessee at ₹ 3,44,109/- is not correct. Ld. CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income following the decision of earlier years and the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court. The relevant observation and the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard reads as under :- 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings the appellant company vide its letter dated 22.11.2016, a copy of which has been given in the Paper Book had submitted before the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.), CIT v. Holcim India P. Ltd., (2014) 272 CTR (Del.) 282 and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is restricted to ₹ 7,12,047/- i.e. the amount of dividend income. Since the assessee company has already made disallowance of ₹ 3,44,109/-. Further disallowance on this basis is to be made of ₹ 3,67,938/- as against disallowance of Rs, 62,65,891/- made by the Assessing Officer. Hence the assessee gets relief of ₹ 58,97,953/- (₹ 62,65,891-₹ 3,44,109/-). Thus. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 9. Since the aforesaid decision is based on the principle laid down by the Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013. In this connection, he has referred to details given in Tax Audit Report on page 73 of the Paper Book. 5.6 I have perused the Tax Audit Report for the AY 2014-15 and find that the payments have been made on or before the due date of filing of return applicable in the case of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned addition made in the ground of appeal (₹ 16717/-) deserves to be deleted in view of various decisions of the Delhi High Court including the decision in the case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 311 ITR 508 (Del.). Accordingly, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 16,717/- is directed to be deleted. 12. Once the payments have been made on or due date of return of income then we do not find any inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
