Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 330 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A - HELD THAT:- We find from the balance sheet of the assessee that own funds of the assessee in the form of share capital and reserves and surplus as on 31/03/2014 was ₹ 85.03 Crores (as on 31/03/2003 it was ₹ 84.02 Crores), as against the total investments made by the assessee as on 31/03/2014 in the sum of ₹ 6.33 Crores (as on 31/03/2013 it was ₹ 9.37 Crores.) This goes to prove that assessee is having sufficient own funds in his kitty to make investment thereon. We find that the ld. CIT(A) by placing records on CIT vs Reliance Power and Utilities Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 755 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had deleted the disallowance of interest made under second limb of rule 8D (2) of the rules. We do not find any infirmity in the said action of the ld. CIT(A). Disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) - delayed payment of provident fund and ESI dues beyond the due dates specified under the respective acts - HELD THAT:- We find that the date of remittance of PF and ESI dues for each month is duly tabulated in pages 8 & 9 of the order of CIT(A) and from which it is seen that the entire dues were duly remitted by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return of income and hence, by respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patel Transport Ltd [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and DCIT vs Hind Filter Ltd., [2017 (12) TMI 810 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance made u/s. u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act which does not call any interference. Accordingly, ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Adhoc disallowance towards travelling and conveyance - HELD THAT:- No ad hoc disallowance of travel expenses @5% in the sum of ₹ 26,90,802/- is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we find that this Tribunal for A.Y.2012-13 in assessee’s own case on the impugned issue had remanded the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh examination in pages 11 & 12 of its order which are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. Respectfully following the said decision, we deem it fit to remand this issue to the file of the ld. AO with the similar directions prevailing as in A.Y.2012-13 supra. Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
|