TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee. As in the present case disallowance under section 14 A read with rule 8D has already exceeded by the suo Moto disallowance made of the assessee amounting to ₹ 21952010/- against the exempt income of ₹ 11058833/- therefore no further disallowance can be imputed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 4088/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2017 - H. S. Sidhu (Judicial Member) And Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Rajesh Kumar, Senior Departmental Representative For the Respondent : Tarandeep Singh, CA ORDER Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) 01. This appeal is preferred by revenue against the order of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals) - XVII-B, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1, 10, 58, 833/- which is been claimed as exempt in the return of income and therefore the assessee was asked to show cause as to why disallowance under section 14 A read with rule 8D be not made at the rate of 0.5% on average value of investment as per the balance sheet. In response to this, the assessee submitted that it has already made disallowance of expenditure of ₹ 2.13 crores against the exempt dividend income of ₹ 1.11 crores. It is further submitted that it is disallowed the entire expenditure of ₹ 2.13 crores incurred by the assessee on account of personnel, administrative and other expenses. However the Ld. assessing officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and therefore he computed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure incurred by the assessee. 07. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also produced the orders of the lower authorities. In the present case the assessee has earned exempt dividend income of ₹ 11058833/- and assessee on its own has disallowed a sum of ₹ 21952010/- in the form of ₹ 678146/- out of interest and ₹ 21273864/- in accordance with the clause (iii) of sub rule 2 of rule 8 D under section 14 A of the income tax act. Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments vs ACIT [TS-92-HC-2015(DEL)-O] held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act must not be made to the extent that it is almost equal to or more than the actual dividend income received by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
