TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance u/s 14A of the Act is called for. As no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue. Revenue has also not placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere to the order of CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA Nos. 3479 & 3851/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2021 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : --None-- Revenue by : Shri Sarwan Kumar Gautam, CIT-D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : Both the present appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-35 22, New Delhi dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 27.02.2018 (Appeal No.736/16-17) granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred In deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer u/s 14A r. w. Rule 8D, amounting to ₹ 12,50,66,466/-. 2. Whether for application of section 14A(1) of the Income Tax , 1961 (the Act) the purpose for making investment and earning tax exempt income thereon is an essential legal requirement? 3. Whether the term in relation to as used in section 14A of the Act cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,466/- as being inadmissible in terms of section 14A. The assessee was asked to justify as to why no disallowance u/s 14A be made to which assessee inter alia submitted that since no exempt income has been earned, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. It was further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the Hon ble Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The submissions of the assesse was not found acceptable to AO. AO noted that the issue u/s 14A of the Act in the absence of any dividend income earned by the assessee was presently subjudice before the Supreme Court, and in order to keep the issue alive he disallowed ₹ 12,50,66,466/- u/s 14A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 14A of the Act is called for. 11. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue. Revenue has also not placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere to the order of CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. Since the facts for A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No.3851/Del/2018 are similar to that of A.Y. 2013-14 as admitted by Learned DR, we for the reasons stated herein while dismissing the ground of Revenue and for similar reasons dismiss the grounds for A.Y. 2014-15 also. Thus the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
