Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 312 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance u/s 14A - AO made disallowance without recording his dissatisfaction on any cogent ground - Held that:- Following the decision rendered in judgment cited as Godrej & Boyce Manufacture Company Ltd. (2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in HT Media Limited (2017 (8) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT), we are of the considered view that the findings returned by AO that “the contention of the assessee company that it has not incurred any expenses for earning exempt income and take services of investment adviser is not acceptable” do not hold good because when the assessee has come up with categoric plea that it has not incurred any expenses to earn the exempt income from mutual funds and that the assessee has itself made disallowance to the tune of ₹ 1,00,000/- which has been accepted by the AO without pointing out any defect, provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be invoked. Because sub-section (2) & (3) of section 14A with Rule 8D of the Rules has only prescribed a formula for determination of an expenditure to earn the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, which can only be invoked if the AO is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. Therefore the addition made by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|