TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her appeal before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. Hence, following the decision for earlier years, decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 301/JP/2016, ITA No. 302/JP/2016, ITA No. 303/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Revenue by : G.R. Parik (JCIT) Assessee by : Shri B.V. Maheshwari (CA) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. These are three appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur of even date 04/01/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 2012-13 respectively. Since common issues are involved, all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. The grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed payment of employee contribution of ESI and PF. (3). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 2,53,22,418/- made by the AO under the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that all the grounds are covered in favour of the assessee by the assessee s own cases passed by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier years. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that though the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in respect of earlier years, at the same time, the department is in further appeal against the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that impugned investments are not out of borrowed funds and they were out of assessee s own resources. On the other hand, a self contradictory stand is adopted by AO in the guise of mechanical rule and these interest free own funds are included as borrowed funds. This is impermissible and clearly manifests a self contradictory approach. (iv) Ld. AO has failed to correlate proximity of any nexus between the exempt income with expenditure incurred in this behalf by an objective analysis and cogent reasons. Since there is no correlation no basis exists for method of any apportionment of expenses, as held by Supreme Court in Walfort case (supra). (v) Apropos administrative or other expenses there is even no whisper from ld. AO that ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.1 Apropos the second ground raised in AY 2011-12 in respect of contribution of Employees PF, it is not disputed that the payments are made by the assessee within the due date prescribed for filing the return. The issue in question is squarely covered by Hon ble Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of CIT V. SBBJ (2014) 263 ITR 17, which has been relied by ld. CIT(A). Respectfully following Hon ble Rajasthan High Court judgment this ground is dismissed. 5. Regarding the third ground in respect of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act which is relevant only for A.Y. 2012-13, the coordinate bench in ITA No.911/JP/2010 order dated 05/08/2011 has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings are reproduced as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
