TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt hardly forms a justifiable reason not to follow the order of the ‘tribunal’. In these circumstances, we confirm the findings under challenge of CIT(A) deleting impugned addition of deemed dividend. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 14A r.w.r 8D in assessment year 2009-10 - Held that:- The Revenue has not filed any evidence before us so as to dispel the findings of the CIT(A) qua the total expenditure, administrative expenses, amount disallowed/added back on its own (supra)by the assessee as well as remaining amount of ₹ 11,10,836/-. It is evident to us that from the total expenses the assessee has itself disallowed/added back expenses of ₹ 18,74,911/- out of ₹ 29,85,747/-. Thus, the expenses which remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). In assessment year 2009-10, the proceedings are u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. A combined perusal of the grounds raised in all cases makes it clear that there are two substantive grievances pleaded on behalf of the appellant/Revenue. The common issue in all appeals is that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In addition to this, in assessment year 2009-10 only, there is one more ground that the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. In view of the fact that the issue of deemed dividend is common in all cases, we take up I.T.A.No.2203/Mds/2013 for assessment year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order dated 31.12.2009 that the Assessing Officer did not agree to the aforesaid explanation tendered by the assessee. He held that first of all, the assessee was not fulfilling RBI guidelines to be an NBFC and its memorandum stating itself as an investment company in itself could not confer this status. Coming to the transaction in question of ₹ 32,82,500/-, he was of the view that it attracted the provision of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as the shareholding pattern between the holding and subsidiary company(supra) was to the extent of 100%. Coming to the order of the tribunal , the Assessing Officer was of the view that the department had preferred appeal before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the tribunal . In these circumstances, we confirm the findings under challenge of CIT(A) deleting impugned addition of deemed dividend. So, I.T.A.No.2203/ Mds/2013 is decided in favour of the assessee. Same order to follow in all other appeals I.T.A.Nos.2204 to 2208/Mds/2013 qua corresponding grounds. 8. This leaves us with the issue of addition u/s 14A r.w.r 8D in assessment year 2009-10 [I.T.A.No.2208/Mds/2013]. 9. Brief backdrop of facts qua this ground are that qua this assessment year, the assessee s revenue receipts read `2,79,31,350/- including exempt income in the shape of dividends u/s 10(34) of the Act of ₹ 2,57,71,350/- i.e 92.27% of the total income. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee denied to have i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in this backdrop that the Revenue argues for restoration of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 11. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the case file. We make it clear that the Revenue has not filed any evidence before us so as to dispel the findings of the CIT(A) qua the total expenditure, administrative expenses, amount disallowed/added back on its own (supra)by the assessee as well as remaining amount of ₹ 11,10,836/-. It is evident to us that from the total expenses the assessee has itself disallowed/added back expenses of `18,74,911/- out of ₹ 29,85,747/- (supra). Thus, the expenses which remain in assessee s profit loss account turn out to be ₹ 11,10,836/-. From this amount as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
