9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhu, Jr. Standing Counsel ORDER AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 29.11.2017 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 184/Chd/2016, for the assessment year 2011-12, claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment under Section 143 (3) of the Act by making addition of Rs. 2,15,56,021/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short "the Rules") besides other additions. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-I, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 28.12.2015 (Annexu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act was restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not at a higher figure. 5. Further, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015 (Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi decided on 12.2.2018, had in para 40 held as under:- "40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business proposition. Whether dividend is earned or not becomes immaterial. In fact, it would be a quirk of fate that when the investee company declared dividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits. The situation here is, therefore, different from the case like Maxopp Investment Ltd. where the assessee wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
