TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Vinit Moondra, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Sr. D.R O R D E R PER : T.R.Meena, Accountant Member This is an appeal at the behest of the assessee which has emanated from the order of CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad, order dated 28.11.2011 for assessment year 2008-09, in which disallowance of ₹ 5,35,926/- was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 2. The A.O. observed in assessment order that there was increase in the investment and which resulted in Long Term Capital Gain amounting to ₹ 1,04,52,765/- and dividend income amounting to ₹ 2,64,637/-, both were not form part of total income of the assessee company. The assessee company has not disallowed any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses as well as making investments. Appellant incurred substantial employees' remuneration and other administrative expenses, part of which may relate to investment resulting in exempt income. Similarly payment of interest will also partly relate to investment and trading resulting in exempt income therefore disallowance under section 14 A on account of interest and other expenses are necessary. Coming to the method of computation of disallowance under section 14 A, assessing officer disallowed expenses relatable to exempt income as per rule 8D which is mandatory from assessment year 2008- 09. For interest, proportionate expense is disallowable whereas for other expenses .5% of average investment value is disallowable. Considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 14 A. Since rule 8D is mandatory from assessment year 2008-09, the appeal decisions in earlier years when expenses relating to exempt income were to be estimated in the absence of rule 8D are not applicable. As assessing officer worked out interest disallowance as per rule 8D, the interest disallowance is confirmed. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon following cases:- a. Hero Cycles Ltd V/s CIT 323ITR518 (P H) A.Y. 04-05 [November 4, 2009 (Punjab Haryana Highcourt)] b. K Raheja Corporation Pvt Ltd v/s The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Mumbai [ITA 1260 of 2009] Hon ble Mumbai High Court A.Y. 05-06 c. Minda Investments Ltd V/s DCIT [Circle 6(1), New Delhi-Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
