9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,47,00,000/- u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.14A to the book profit u/s.115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITO v/s. RBK Share Broking Pvt.Ltd. - 37 Taxmann 128 (2013), M/s. Viraj Profiles Ltd. In ITAT No.4439/Mum/2013 dated 21/10/2015 - 46 ITR(T) 626 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee company, being partner in those firms, was required to devote their full time and attention to the partnership business and all the firms were operating from the address of the assessee. Therefore, not convinced, Ld. AO applying Rule 8D, worked out expenses disallowance of Rs. 159.44 Lacs as against Rs. 12.44 Lacs computed by the assessee and added the difference of Rs. 147 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. The aforesaid adjustment was made while arriving at income under normal provisions as well as u/s 115JB. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 24/11/2016 wherein various submissions were made by the assessee which have been extracted in the impugned order. The Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12, the copies of which have been placed on record. We have gone through the same as well as financial statements for impugned AY as placed on record. 5.3 The perusal of Tribunal's order for AY 2009-10, ITA No. 6972/Mum/2012 dated 17/04/2015 reveal that the decision for that AY has been rendered after due consideration of factual matrix and perusal of expenditure as claimed by the assessee in the Profit & Loss Account. From the order, it is evident that in that year, the assessee had made suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 165.43 Lacs against common expenditure of Rs. 471 Lacs which translated into disallowance rate of 35%, which led the Tribunal to delete the additional disallowance made by Ld. AO. 5.4 Similarly, the Tribunal's order for AY 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the disallowance was to be applied in all cases irrespective of the fact whether the same are held as stock-in-trade or as an investments. 5.7 Therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and keeping in view the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as cited above, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication in the light of statutory provisions as well as in the light of ratio of cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate his claim with supporting evidences in this regard failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to decide the issue on the basis of material available on record. 5.8 So far as adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A in computation of bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
