9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer was deleted by him. CIT(A) while deciding the issue has followed the decision of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd [ 2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER ] where it has been held that in absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A - As reasoning given by the CIT(A) on this issue and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the AO. Accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue are according dismissed. - Shri R. K. Panda, Vice President And Ms Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Nikhil S Pathak For the Department : Shri Ramnath Murkunde ORDER PER R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D should not be made. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 3,73,19,882/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D. 5. Before the CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has not received any dividend income and therefore, no disallowance can be made in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC) and the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of McDonald s India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 101 taxmann.com 86 (Del). The v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8D, has worked out the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 1,48,77,912/- on the tax free investments made by the appellant in its subsidiary company- John Deere Financial India Pvt Ltd (JDFIPL) by way of equity share capital. Before me, the Ld. AR for the appellant has argued that during the year under consideration, there was no exempt income earned by the appellant and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. (supra), no disallowance u/s 14A could be made. The Appellant has also submitted that the investments made by it were only out of its own funds and that the Appellant itself has made a disallowance of Rs 25,000 u/s 14A on its own. Since, no exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment years 2012-13 and 2014-15 that in absence of any exempt income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Nothing contrary was brought to our notice against the order of the CIT(A) for the earlier assessment years where such disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by him. Further, the CIT(A) while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where it has been held that in absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act. In view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) on this issue and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Revenue, we do not find any infirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
