TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestments yielded exempt income. The calculation put forth before the Tribunal for demonstrating that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue has neither been vetted by the AO or the ld. CIT. We refrain from making any comment on its correctness without considering the corresponding details. It would be in the fitness of the things if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT for ascertaining if the order passed by the AO is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the manner in which the assessee is trying to make out so as to clothe him with the jurisdiction to take action under section 263 of the Act. If the calculation of the assessee is found to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 161.07 crore. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was taken up in which the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee company had made investments in mutual funds under Dividend Option Scheme up to 30-09-2014 and from 01-10-2014 onwards the investments were shifted from Dividend Option Scheme to Growth Funds. The assessee earned dividend amounting to ₹ 21,93,20,990/- which was received up to 30-09-2014. From 01-10-2014 to 31-03-2015, the assessee received short term capital gain of ₹ 28.68 crore, which was offered for taxation. The amount of investment on 30-09-2014 stood at ₹ 704.83 crore. The assessee offered disallowance u/s. 14A only amounting to ₹ 4,73,480/-. On being called upon to explain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng average value of investment with opening figure as on 01-04-2014 at ₹ 607.71 crore and Nil figure as on 31-03-2015 giving average value of investments at ₹ 303.85 crore) as against the amount disallowed by the AO at ₹ 1.64 crore (with average value of investments at 01-04-2014 to 30-09-2014). For taking Nil figure of investments at the end of the year, the ld. AR relied on ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) holding that the average value of investments, for the purposes of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is an undisputed fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section is ousted. The ld. AR has made out a case that the assessment order in this case is certainly erroneous but not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The calculation put forth before the Tribunal for demonstrating that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue has neither been vetted by the AO or the ld. CIT. We refrain from making any comment on its correctness without considering the corresponding details. In our considered opinion, it would be in the fitness of the things if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT for ascertaining if the order passed by the AO is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the manner in which the assessee is try ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
