TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation [2002 (9) TMI 96 - BOMBAY High Court ] wherein held that the assessee's method of accounting does not result in loss of tax/revenue for the Department Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- AO has not recorded the satisfaction as to how the claim of the assessee is wrong with reference to the books of account of the assessee. We are therefore convinced with the submissions of the assessee on this score and are in agreement with the arguments of the ld.AR that for the invocation of provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D is not mandatory unless and until the AO has recorded his satisfaction. The case of the assessee finds suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After considering the rival submission and on perusal of material placed before us including the order of the Tribunal (supra) in assessee s own case, we find that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. For the sake of ready reference, we reproduce the findings of the Tribunal order as under: 17. We find that the matter in the assessment years mentioned hereinabove travelled upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal by a consolidated order mainly in ITA Nos. 3006/M/01 and 4892/M/03 and ITA No. 3620/M/01 alongwith other appeals order dated 20.3.2013 has held at para-34 as under: After having examined all the transactions which have been impugned before us, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and on perusal of material placed before us including the order of the Tribunal (supra) in assessee s own case, we find that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in ITA No.820/Mum/2014, dated 4.11.2015 by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in 258 ITR 601(Bom). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below (ITA No.820/M/2014, para 9.2 to 12) : 9.2. After considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee, the AO was of the opinion that on identical set of facts, the department has not accepted the claim in the case of HDFC Bank, therefore, the same is also not accepted in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation (supra). In view thereof, we do not find that even question (B) gives rise to any substantial question of law that needs to be answered by this court. 12. As the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 11,50,42,776/- in the light of the decision in the case of HDFC Bank (supra). Ground No. 2 is accordingly allowed 12. Resultantly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. ITA No.5706/Mum/2015. 13. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 7,15,836/- by the ld.CIT(A) as made by the AO under section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Act and Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No. CIT(A)-6/IT-108/Rg-2(3)/12-13 dated 21.10.2013 has held after detailed discussion in para 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 that disallowance has to be computed as per rule 8D. In doing so, he has relied on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mft co.Ltd (supra) that rule 8D is applicable from AY-2008-09 onwards. However, he allowed claim of ₹ 5,27,908/- disallowed under rule 8D(2)(i). No such disallowance has been made by the AO in this year i.e. disallowance under rule 8D(2)(i) is nil. Hence, following the above decision of the ld. CIT(A)-6 for AY 2010-11, the disallowance is upheld and the ground is dismissed. 15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A). The ld. DR further stated that even if the shares are held as stock in trade the dividend income was exempt and disallowance has to be made. 17. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, we find that the AO has not recorded the satisfaction as to how the claim of the assessee is wrong with reference to the books of account of the assessee. We are therefore convinced with the submissions of the assessee on this score and are in agreement with the arguments of the ld.AR that for the invocation of provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D is not mandatory unless and until the AO has recorded his satisfaction. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
