TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts are that the assessee did not have any exempt income during the year. Thus as relying on M /S. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [ 2019 (7) TMI 1371 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the assessee had not earned any exempt income and there is, therefore, no question of disallowance under section 14A that would arise.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A while computing the book profits under Section 115JB - HELD THAT:- Since we have dismissed ground no. 1 of Revenue s appeal by confirming the order of learned CIT(A) wherein the learned CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act on the ground that assessee is not having any exempt income during the year, therefore, this ground is consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue raised in ground no. 1 which is qua the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 1,63,08,773/- by the learned CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) by accepting the decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs DCIT, 328 ITR 81 (Bombay). The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue has also been decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case in ITA No. 702/2017 dated 22.07.2019 by following the decision in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) as the assessee was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court on numerous occasions. 6. In the result, no question of law arises. Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. 6. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dismiss ground no. 1 of the appeal. 7. The issue raised in ground no. 2 is qua the deletion of disallowance made under Section 40a(ia) r.w.s 194H of the Act by the learned CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the facts and legal position under which these expenses have been incurred by the assessee. 8. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the same decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide para 2 and 3 wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not carried the issue further. Even on merits, the Tribunal was of the view that the payment was made on principal to principal basis and was not a payment of a principal to the agent. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as noted, besides holding that the Commissioner s order setting aside the order passed u/s 201 was not carried in appeal, had also independently examined the nature of the transaction and come to the conclusion that when the transaction was between two persons on principal to principal basis, deduction of tax at source as per section 194H of the Act, would not be made since the payment was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
