Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1905 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Assessee’s own funds are more than the investment as explained above in Para 4 of this order. We have gone through the entire facts regarding available of funds and noticed that the presumptions as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is in favour of assessee because the Revenue could not establish any nexus with the expenses claimed by assessee vis-à-vis exempt income. In the absence of the same, the presumptions in favour of assessee and hence, we delete the addition. As delete the addition on the issue of satisfaction. Once, the addition is deleted on the issue of satisfaction, nothing will remain even on administrative expenses. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. Adjustment made by TPO on account of guarantee commission u/s 92C - HELD THAT:- As the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee, wherein guarantee commission is to be charged at 0.5% as bench mark by the assessee, we are of the view that no further adjustment to determine the ALP is to be made. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. Disallowance of professional fee treating it as a capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- We do not agree with this contention of the appellant since any expenditure relating to issue of securities is capital in nature. In case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. [1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that expenditure incurred for issue of shares, is capital in nature and hence not allowable u/s. 37(l) of the IT Act. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab State industrial Development Corporation [1996 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT]
|