9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.52,00,515/- u/s14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the authorities below grossly erred in applying rule 8D of Income Tax Rule,1962 to facts of the case since the application of the same resulted in absurd results. 4. Without prejudice, the disallowance as per third limb as contained in rule 8D (2)(iii) could not have been computed at Rs.59,42,538/- when the total expenses incurred by the appellant (other than the amount covered by rule 8D (2) (i) & 8D (2) (ii) were to the tune of Rs.9,10,121/- only. Thus the authorities below erred in disallowing what the appellant has not even claimed. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, and modify all or any of the above gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by AO by holding as under:- "I have considered the submissions of the appellant findings of the AO and the facts on record. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 has held that rule 8D is applicable from A. Y 2008-09. Rule 8D considers three circumstances under which disallowance is required to be made which are as under:- (I) The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income:- (II) Secondly, proportionate disallowance of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, and; (III) Thirdly, an amount equal to one-half percent of the average of the value of the investment, income from which doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In view of the findings above, the disallowance made by the AO is as per law. These grounds of appeal are dismissed." 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. At the out set the Ld. AR took us to page 11 of paper book wherein, a copy of profit and loss account was placed and invited our attention to the total expenses and argued that total expenses other than interest amounted to Rs.9,10.121/- out of which the assessee suo motu had surrendered an amount of Rs.7,42,023/- as disallowance u/s 14A and, therefore, the assessee had at its own disallowance made of substantial portion of expenses and addition made and upheld by Ld. CIT (A) is far more than total expenses. He further, argued that 'F' Bench of Delhi Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
