TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowed the Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the disallowance at ₹ 4,14,921/-. The ld. DR had also no objection to the aforesaid reasoning, if followed. - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA NO.5506/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessee by: Shri Rishabh Shah Revenue by: Shri Ashish Heliwal-DR ORDER Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21/07/2014 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in this appeal pertains to disallowing a sum of ₹ 1,38,29,156/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) read with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce as per Rule 8D. The disallowance was computed at ₹ 62,05,595/-. Since the assessee has suomotu disallowed ₹ 1,81,532/-, the AO disallowed ₹ 60,24,063/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CITCA) but without any success. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities have not appreciated the fact properly. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the entire investments have been made out of own funds and borrowed funds have not been utilized for making the investments. The Ld. Counsel referred to the documentary evidences brought on record. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. 7. We have carefully peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire investment was made out of own funds and simply because the assessee had borrowed funds in the balance sheet does not mean that the assessee made investment out of borrowed capital. It was further observed that the assessee made disallowance at the rate of 1%, which was considered to be towards lower side, therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the disallowance on account of indirect expenses at the rate of 5% of the dividend income and since the assessee had suomotu disallowed ₹ 1,81,532/-, the Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the disallowance at ₹ 4,14,921/-. The ld. DR had also no objection to the aforesaid reasoning, if followed. Considering the totality of facts, the ld. Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
