9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,58,000/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules without considering principles as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT v Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 as explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v CIT (2012) 347 ITR 272? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,39,58,000/- u/s 14A of the Act without considering CBDT circular No. 5 of 2014 dated February 11, 2014 which has clarified the scope of section 14A introduced by the Finance Act 2001 and term "includible" in Headings to section 14A of the Act and to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de various additions/disallowance. Aggrieved with the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. In ground Nos. 1 and 2, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,39,58,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the act. 3.1 Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the disallowance has been made in accordance with law under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962 and, thus, the Ld. CIT(A), is not justified in deleting the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies. The purpose of such investment was to take strategical control over the relevant markets. Therefore, such an investment cannot be held to have been made for the purpose of earning dividend income but was for the business purposes only. It is undisputed that no dividend income on such investments have ever been earned by the appellant in the current year or later. Under the circumstances, the reliance of the Id. AO on the provisions of section 14A in this regard is unfounded. It is also seen that the Id. AO has also admitted that no amount of interest bearing funds were deployed in making such investments as he has not made any disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). In view of the above, as no exempt income was earned by the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be allowed on estimated expenditure, bill for which was submitted on 27/04/2010 i.e. subsequent to the alleged commissioning of the building on 02/03/2010, and thus assessee is not eligible for depreciation in respect of the canteen building. 4.2 On the contrary, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had given contract to M/s Gupta hospitality services to run the canteen w.e.f. 1st week of March 2010, which in itself is in evidence that the canteen building was put to use in the year under consideration and that the depreciation was claimed accordingly. 4.3 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a related party, and the fact that the AO has himself allowed such expenses for running the canteen in the month of March, 2010, implies that the canteen building was constructed and was put to use during the current year. Keeping in view the above, this ground is also allowed in favour of the appellant." 4.4 We find that main evidence in support of the claim of putting the canteen building to use is the running expenses of Rs. 24,83,572/- paid to M/s Gupta Hospitality Services Private Limited, which is an unrelated party. The Assessing Officer has allowed the running expenses. This factual finding has not been controverted by the Ld. DR. On the issue of provision of Rs. 25 lakhs, also the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that building was alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s evident from the items that those are electrical installation and in the nature of essential part of plant and machinery, required for functioning of the machinery. The Ld. DR could not controvert that those items were essential for running of the plant and machinery and thus in the nature of electrical installation. In our opinion, order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we do not find any infirmity in the same, and accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed accordingly. 6. The ground No. 5 is general in nature and covered by the other grounds raised and thus we are not required to adjudicate upon specifically. 7. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is general in nature and dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
