Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1972 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. Rule 8D - CIT-A directing the exclusion of investments made by the assessee in its subsidiary company, while computing the disallowance u/s.14A - whether strategic investments are to be excluded while computing disallowance u/s.14A? - HELD THAT:- This issue has been clearly addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Maxopp Investment Ltd.[2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] Decisions of the Tribunal relied on by the Ld.AR were either rendered prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Maxopp Investment Ltd., or rendered without considering this judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, these decisions cannot further the assessee’s case. We are therefore, of the opinion that the Ld.CIT(A) fell in error in directing the AO to exclude the investments made by the assessee in M/s.Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set-aside and the disallowance made by the AO is reinstated. Write off of bad debts disallowed - HELD THAT:- Assessee was a publisher of newspaper and magazines. Though it say that one of its objects is to carry on business of money lending, obviously, it was only one of the incidental and/or other object and not its main object. That apart, we find that the loan given to Mr. Sanjay Khemani was the sole instance of a loan given to any person other than those who were not related to its main business assessee. Hence, in our opinion assessee’s claim that it had advanced loan to Mr. Sanjay Khemani as a part of its business is not acceptable. As for the judgment of M/s. TRF Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] relied on by the Ld.AR their Lordships did not hold that conditions set out in sections.36(1)(vii) and Sec.36(2) were not required to be satisfied while effecting a write off of bad debts. Therefore, in our opinion the lower authorities were justified disallowing claim as bad debt write off. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. - Decided against assessee.
|