TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT) and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra) wherein it is categorically held that where the assessee has not earned any dividend income forming part of the total income during the year under assessment, section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted. AO proceeded to invoke section 14A read with Rule 8D without recording his dis-satisfaction. So, in these circumstances, the ld. CIT (A) by considering all these facts rightly deleted the addition. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the order of the ld. CIT (A), we hereby dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. - ITA No.5980/Del./2015 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2017 - SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Gaur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (for short the Rules ) qua investment shown in the balance sheet. AO being dis-satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee company proceeded to compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules as under :- 11 . In view of the above, it is held that the case of the assessee is a fit case for computing the disallowance u / s 14A in accordance with Rule 8D . The computation of disallowance is as under : i) The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income. Nil ii) In a case where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,02,79,125/- = ₹ 9,01,396/- 9,01,396/- Disallowance(i+ii+iii)= ₹ 62,58,956 3. AO thereby made disallowance to the tune of ₹ 62,58,956/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of filing appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has deleted the disallowance of ₹ 62,58,956/- by allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of challenging the impugned order passed by ld. CIT (A). 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 8D in a mechanical manner which is not permissible. 9. Hon ble Delhi High Court in judgment cited as Maxopp Investment Ltd . (supra) while deciding the identical issue held as under :- Section 14A even prior to the introduction of subsections ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) would require the Assessing Officer to first reject the claim of the assessee with regard to the extent of such expenditure and such rejection must be for disclosed cogent reasons . It is then that the question of determination of such expenditure by the Assessing Officer would arise . The requirement of adopting a specific method of determining such expenditure has been introduced by virtue of sub - section ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come which does not form part of the total income under the Act . He is required to do so on the basis of a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment . 10. Hon ble Apex Court in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd . vs . DCIT 394 ITR 449 ( SC ) thrashed the issue in controversy as to invoking of the provisions contained under Rule 8D of the Rules by observing as under :- 37 . We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002 - 2003 . Sub - sections ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
