TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular Assessment Year and the Assessing Officer did not find any ambiguity regarding any expenditure directly or indirectly attributable to the investment made by the assessee. AO as well as the CIT(A) both have ignored this fact. Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. DR relied on various decisions and submitted that the assessed income cannot be below the return income especially when assessee has computed disallowance suo moto and paid tax in self assessment. The Ld. AR could not controvert the aove contentions of the Ld. DR. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to take congnizance of the same and accordingly compute the income of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose - I.T.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing officer, has clearly found that none of the interest payment is attributable to the investments. 4. On facts of the case, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) ought to have recognized the suo moto disallowance made by the Appellant assessee and directed the Assessing officer, to delete the additional disallowance of ₹ 1,97,03,392 as the same is based on wrong calculations. Additional Grounds of appeal 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have restricted the disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A to the extent of dividend income of ₹ 1,02,49,538/-, which has been claimed exempt by the appellant u/s 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 1,02,49,538/- received by assessee from M/s. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. during the year and the same was included by the assessee as taxable business income. Therefore, there was no question of disallowance u/s 14A, since the dividend was not shown as exempt income. The Assessing Officer observed that, as per the assessee s own submissions, this was only part of its investment in shares and from perusal of the final accounts of the assessee revealed that during the relevant assessment year, its investment in shares increased from ₹ 21.86 crores to ₹ 42.38 crores and the source of this investment was mainly the loans, it availed during the year to the tune of ₹ 20 crores apart from shares (worth ₹ 23.73 cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court) Special Bench decision in case of ACIT Vs. Bireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 2017 82 Taxman.com 415. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to claim exemption under Section 10(35) of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that assessed income cannot be below the returned income. The Ld. DR further submitted that the decision of the Sam Global Securities will not be applicable in the assessee s case, but the DR could not differentiate the factual aspect of the present case and the decision of the Hon ble High Court. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) held as under:- 3.2.2 Therefore, section 14A mandates that disallowance under the section is to be made on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court relied by the Ld. AR that of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. and ACB India Ltd. and Special Bench decision in case of Bireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. are squarely covering the case of the assessee. In present assessee s case, the assessee has demonstrated that the assessee has not incurred any expenses to earn a dividend income in this particular Assessment Year and the Assessing Officer did not find any ambiguity regarding any expenditure directly or indirectly attributable to the investment made by the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) both have ignored this fact. Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. The Ld. DR relied on various decisions and submitted that the assessed income cannot be b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
