TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... banking channels for the services rendered outside India. The Commission has been remitted in foreign currency outside India. The findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue remain unrebutted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Vs. CIT reported as [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] has held that, if the income chargeable to tax is not assessable in India, there is no question of deduction of tax at source. No error in the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s.14A - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- The provision of Rule 8D cannot be applied in the assessment year under appeal i.e. 2007-08. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee on 24.07.2008. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) for not deducting tax at source on commission paid to M/s. Met-Tech International Private Ltd F40,62,000/- and disallowance u/s. 14A for not allocating any expenditure on earning dividend income of F1,22,275/-. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 16.12.2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the Revenue has come in appeal assailing the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue. 6. The second ground raised in the appeal by the Revenue is against deleting disallowance u/s.14A F97,402/-. The assessee has earned dividend income of F1,22,275/-. The Assessing Officer applied the provision of Rule 8D. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the entire disallowance. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 (Bom) has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable with effect from assessment year 2008-09 onwards. Thus, the provision of Rule 8D cannot be applied in the assessment year under appeal i.e. 2007-08. However, reasonable disallowance has to be made for earning tax free inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
