9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. A.O. without appreciating that the intent of the assessee was not to earn any exempt income and the provisions of the Act. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute or delete any ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal." 2 . The only issue involved is against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 30,15,375/- made by the AO. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical products. The return of income filed on 29.09.2008. The Assessing Officer found that assessee has made investments resulting into the exempt income as per the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was provided an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant disputed further disallowance of Rs.30 lakh made by the AO over and above the disallowance computed by the appellant. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that the provisions of 14A are applicable in respect of the investment made for earning exempt income. But in the case of the appellant the investment made in four joint venture companies namely Chiron Panecea Vaccines (P) Ltd., Cambridge Biostability Ltd., Panheber Biotec (P) Ltd. (Panera Biotec (P) Ltd.) and Shivalik Solid Waste Management Ltd. was with the intention to expand the business of the appellant out of commercial expediency and not with the intention of earning exempt income. He submitted that earning of exempt income by way of dividend was only incidental to the main inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . was justified in computing the disallowance under Rule 8D by considering the investment in joint venture companies also. In view of the above discussion, the disallowance made by the A.O. is upheld. This ground of appeal is rejected." Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR relied on the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Relaxo Footwear Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT reported in (2012) 50 SOT 102 wherein the issue has been decided by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT - 328 ITR 81, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., Nalwa Investments Ltd. and Sharda Motors Industries Ltd. - 203 T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
