9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that the assessee has received the exempt income being dividend income and exempt long term capital gain. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the applicability of Rule 8D should have been restricted to that extent only. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance on the amount as per Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 4,,77,220 (being dividend income of ₹ 4,42,693/- and exempted long term capital gain of ₹ 34,5271- made by the Id. AO. b) That Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in not giving the directions to compute disallowance u/r 8D by considering the average of only those investments on which the exempted income was received by the appellant company instead of total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee Company is Non-Banking Financial Corporation engaged in the business of investment in shares, securities as well as advancing of loans. Return of income was filed on 22/9/2016 declaring loss of ₹ 57,85,128/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) was passed on 28/12/2015 determining total loss at ₹ 4,03,500/-. The Assessing Officer added ₹ 39,04,820/- on account of expenses incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment on which the exempt income was received by the assessee company instead of total investments. The Ld. AR relied upon the Jurisdictional High Court decisions in case of Cheminvestment Ltd. Vs. CIT 61 Taxman.com 118 and ACB India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA 615/2014 Decided on 24th March, 2015). The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has received only ₹ 4,77,220/- as exempt income. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
