Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1942 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D2(ii) - availability of own funds - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the appellant has own fund more than investment. The capital and reserves fund was to the tune of ₹ 26,433.77 lacs. The investment was to the tune of ₹ 9,453.07/- lacs. In view of law settled in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] investment portion was not liable to be considered in computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - The matter of controversy has rightly been adjudicated by the CIT(A) . Facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. No distinguishable material has been produced before us. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the matter of controversy on this issue, therefore, we found no ground to be interfere with in this issue. Restriction of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules to the extent of dividend income from non-trade investment - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the CIT(A) has restricted the AO to re compute the administrative expenses to the extent of ₹ 118.17 lacs which was the investment to earn the dividend income. In this regard, the matter of controversy has been adjudicated in the case of ACIT, Circle 17(1) New Delhi Vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] in which it specifically held that only those investment are liable to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and incorrectly which is not liable to be interfere with at this stage. Accordingly, this issue is being decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
|