9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome at a higher figure - As submitted that the AO while giving appeal effect to the order of the ITAT has wrongly assumed the assessed income at a higher figure without any basis, the correction of which has not been carried out resulting in the determination of higher taxable income without any legal basis - HELD THAT:- As per submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we consider it expedient to restore this issue also back to the file of the AO. The assessee shall be at liberty to provide suitable explanation and adduce such evidence as may be necessary to establish its case before the AO. AO shall dispose of the grievance of the assessee in the light of the facts in accordance with law. - I.T.A. No. 253/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome or yielding taxable income while applying Rule 8D(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 1.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowances without addressing the various contentions raised by the appellant vide submissions placed on record. 1.5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by upholding the disallowances solely based on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) without taking into account the submission dated 16.10.2018 providing detailed arguments for non-applicability of the aforesaid judgment, to the facts of the case. 1.6 The Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. Assessing Officer have erred in passing order by ignoring the various judicial precedents relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09,142 investment yielding taxable income (B) 34,06,80,05 1,98,628 17,04,39,340 investment yielding no income (C) 26,05,78,070 41,86,93,920 33,96,35,995 Investment yielding exempt income (D)=(A)- (BHC) 20,61,09,208 71,33,68,408 45,97,38,808 Total Disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) (E) = (D)*0.5% 22, 98,694 (-)Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio laid down in various judicial precedents, they cannot be considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). In this context, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Caraf Builders Constructions (P.) Ltd. (supra) would be relevant: 26. There is another error made by the Assessing Officer in computing the disallowance under clauses (ii) of Rule 8D (2) with reference to the formula prescribed. Numerical B in clause (ii) refers to average value of the investment, income from which does not form part or shall not form part of the total income. The Assessing Officer for numerical B in clause (ii) had taken the total value of the investment and not the investment that had yielde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of taxable income at a higher figure of Rs. 43,06,28,718/- instead of Rs. 42,94,73,387/-. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer while giving appeal effect to the order of the ITAT has wrongly assumed the assessed income at a higher figure without any basis, the correction of which has not been carried out resulting in the determination of higher taxable income without any legal basis. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we consider it expedient to restore this issue also back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall be at liberty to provide suitable explanation and adduce such evidence as may be necessary to establish its case before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
