Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 25 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that no dividend income was received by the assessee during the year and therefore, in view of the decision of Holcim India Pvt. Ltd [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- No infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. It is an admitted fact that the assessee, during the year under consideration, has not earned any exempt or dividend income. It has been held in various decisions that in absence of any exempt or dividend income received during the year under consideration, no addition can be made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chiminvest Ltd.2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that in absence of any exempt income, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER]has held that in absence of any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D can be made. Since, the assessee in the impugned assessment year has admittedly not received any exempt income or dividend income, therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are dismissed. Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - as per AO assessee has failed to demonstrate that the money advanced by the companies to it was in the nature of trade advance and therefore the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- Since, the facts of the present appeal are identical to the facts of the related party decided by the Tribunal in the case of Gaurav Arora [2019 (3 ) TMI 1289 - ITAT DELHI] therefore, respectfully following the same we hold that regular/routine transactions cannot be termed as loans and advances so as to attract the provisions of section 2(22)(e) - Since, the learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition has thoroughly discussed the issue and has given a finding that these are trading/business transactions, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the learned DR against the factual finding given by the learned CIT(A) as above, we do not find any infirmity in his order. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are dismissed
|