TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee received dividend income of ₹ 8 crores from the group concern only which do not require any extra efforts on account of administrative expenses etc. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the disallowance of ₹ 10 lakhs under rule 8D(2)(iii) which was claimed by the assessee at ₹ 1 lakh. - ITA No.202/Mum/2013 AND, ITA No.207/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM, AND, SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM For the Revenue : Shri Neil Philip For the Assessee : Shri Porus Kaka ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. As the similar grounds have been taken in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounting to ₹ 13.07 crores, no disallowance is being made under Rule 8D(2) (ii). However in regard to administrative expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance of ₹ 2,14,85,474/- is being made as computed below .... 5. By the impugned order the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 10 lakhs after having the following observation :- 4.5 I have considered the AOs order as well as the appellant AR's submission. Having considered both, I find that during the year the appeal lies over the disallowance made by AO applied Rule 8D(2)(iii) read with section 14A of the Act wherein the disallowance made by AO was of 0.5 % of average investment which comes to ₹ 2,14,85,474/- against the appellant's di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant company which resulted the increase of investment which consequential resulted into increase of average investment as worked out by the AO in para 4.4 of the order. As I find that most of the investment made by the appellant company as well as of the amalgamating companies are made many years before as stated by the appellant in its submission dated 27/8/2012, which is extracted as above in para 4.2. 4.5 Having considered the appellant's submission as well as AO's'order and also taking note of the disallowance made by the AO in earlier Assessment Year from A. Y 2005-06 to 2008-09 which is deliberated by me in my order of appellant s bearing No.CIT(A)-7 1 Addl.CIT-3(3)/IT-408/l 0-11 dated 21/2.2012 in 'para 4.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of administrative expenses etc. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the disallowance of ₹ 10 lakhs under rule 8D(2)(iii) which was claimed by the assessee at ₹ 1 lakh. 9. The facts and circumstances in ITA No.207/Mum/2013, which has been filed by another group company, are exactly same, wherein the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to ₹ 6,50,000/- against the disallowance works out by the assessee at ₹ 2,50,000/-. The relevant finding of CIT(A) are para 4.4, which has not been controverted by ld. DR by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 10.. In the result, both appeals of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
