TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee : Shri Rajat Jain, CA, Shri Akshat Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, DCIT, Circle 20 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue ) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter alia that :- 1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,00,63,722/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 9,24,24,700/-. 3. Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has deleted the addition by allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue challenging the impugned order contended inter alia that the AO has worked out the disallowance under Rule 8D as per accounts rendered by the assessee having been duly explained at the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. 8. Hon ble Apex Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Oil Industry Development Board (supra) held that when there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under assessment, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not permissible. Similarly, Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT, Central 1 vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that, where there is no exempt income i.e. dividend was not earned during the relevant assessment year by the assessee, section 14A is not be attracted. 9. In view of the matter, decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the ld. DR for the Revenue challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is not applicable to the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
