Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 957 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A - Held that:- In the present case, we note that the assessee had earned dividend income to the extent of ₹ 2,22,343 and has claimed it as exempt income and informed the Assessing Officer that it has not incurred any expenditure in earning the income which is claimed as exempt income and the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. [ 2014 (12) TMI 482 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] wherein it was held that "The Assessing Officer at the first instance must examine the disallowance made by the assessee or the claim of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempted income. If and only if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied on this count after making reference to the accounts, that he is entitled to adopt the method as prescribed, i.e., under rule 8D". This pre-condition is also mandated in sub-rule (1) of rule 8D. We find that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has relied on the order of the Kolkata Bench however, has not given any citation or I. T. A. Number and so it is not clear as to what were the facts or the reason given in that case and on what basis whether any observation has been made cannot be discerned and so the reliance by the Assessing Officer of the said decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal not to record any satisfaction has no legs to stand and so it falls down and since the pre-requisite condition for invoking rule 8D has not been satisfied as per law by the Assessing Officer so the entire disallowance made under section 14A has to go and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly done so and therefore we confirm the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 36(1)(va) regarding late deposit of the employee's contribution to the PF and ESI - Held that:- we find that the dues were paid before filing of return of income which was filed on September 29, 2012 and since the learned Departmental representative could not controvert this fact recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that PF/ESIC dues were in fact paid before the assessee filed the return of income, so we are of the considered opinion that the expenditure need to be allowed in the hands of the assessee as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT ].- Decided in favour of assessee
|