Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 702 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- In the case of Pr. CIT vs. Nirma Credit & Capital (P.) Limited [2017 (9) TMI 485 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as held that amount of expenditure by way of interest would be interest paid by assessee on borrowings minus taxable interest earned during the financial year, for the purposes of applying factors in Clause (ii) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 8D where assessee pays interest on borrowings, as also earns taxable interest on investments. Same view has also taken by Coordinate Benches of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. DLF Asset Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1624 - ITAT DELHI] , DCIT vs. Machino Finance Limited [2016 (9) TMI 1541 - ITAT KOLKATA] and DCIT vs. Trade Apartment Limited [2012 (3) TMI 421 - ITAT KOLKATA] copies of these precedents were filed by the learned counsel for the assessee, and are placed on record. We decide the issue in dispute in favour of the assessee and direct the AO to complete disallowance under Rule 8D of I.T. Rules r.w.s. 14A of the I.T. Act by considering net interest (interest paid by the assessee on borrowings minus taxable interest earned during the year) for purpose of Clause (ii) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 8D. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IC - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) on this issue is just and fair and in accordance with law, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned counsel for the assessee has also not brought any further materials for our consideration to persuade as to take a view different from the view taken by the learned CIT(A). The order of the learned CIT(A) is well reasoned, detailed and speaking order. No such infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) has been brought to our notice by ld. Counsel of the assessee, warranting any interference by us. In fact, no specific submissions were made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, except that this ground of appeal was consequential to ground no. 2 of appeal.
|