TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investments were made by the assessee in mutual funds and shares, out of its own funds. The Department has brought no material before us to controvert the above findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue against the deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure under sec. 14A is dismissed. Disallowance under the head ‘administrative expenses’ under sec. 14A - Held that:- Departmental Representative could not bring any material on record to show that the 0.5% of the administrative expenditure worked out under sub-part (iii) of sub-clause (2) of Rule 8D on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji-1, dated 10/11/2015. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 06 days. The Assessing Officer has filed a condonation petition requesting for condonation of delay and we are satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal by 06 days, was due to reasonable cause, hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the Revenue. 3. The ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is general in nature, hence, requires no adjudication by us. 4. In ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under sec. 14A of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that during the appellate proceedings, the Authorized Representative of the assessee offered ₹ 2 Lac as additional disallowance towards relatable administrative expenses under sec. 14A and therefore, he restricted the disallowance to ₹ 2 Lac under the head administrative expenses and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Before us, the Departmental Representative has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 9. On the other hand, Authorized Representative of the assessee supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He submitted that the disallowance under the head administrative expenses, sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for ₹ 2 Lac, which was admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the 0.5% of the administrative expenditure worked out under sub-part (iii) of sub-clause (2) of Rule 8D on the basis of average value of the investment income from which does not form part of the total income as appearing in the balance sheet as on the first day and in the last day of the previous year was more than ₹ 2 Lac. Our this view finds support from the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Apex Packing Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 28/PAN/2016, order dated 27/04/2016. We find that the Assessing Officer while calculating the disallowance for administrative expenditure has taken the average value of total investments as appearing in the balance sheet as on the first day and in the last day of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
