TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents for the year ending 31.03.2011 31.03.2012 as placed on record, it could be seen that own funds in the shape of share capital and free reserves far exceed the investments made by the assessee and therefore, unless nexus of borrowed funds vis- -vis investment was established by Ld. AO, a presumption would run in assessee's favor that the investments were sourced out of assessee's own funds. We find that no such nexus has been established by Ld. AO. Thirdly, the disallowance as offered by the assessee is in accordance with the earlier decisions of the Tribunal for AYs 2010-11 2011-12. In fact, these decisions were followed in AY 2013-14 [ 2019 (12) TMI 1567 - ITAT CHENNAI] - The revenue preferred further appeal against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (CA No. 7020/2011), Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (326 ITR 1) and Maxopp Investment Limited 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)[2018]. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The registry has noted a delay of 97 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. DR by submitting that the appeal could not be filed in time due to lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic prevailing at that point of time. The Ld. DR submitted that the aforesaid period was marred by Covid-19 pandemic and the same was to be excluded to com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, the assessee offered suo-moto disallowance u/s. 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) @0.5% of average investment which came to ₹ 0.83 Lacs. However, Ld. AO, applying Rule 8D, computed aggregate disallowance of ₹ 721.61 Lacs which comprised-off interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) for ₹ 681.28 Lacs and expense disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) for ₹ 40.33 Lacs. After adjusting suo-moto disallowance, the net differential of ₹ 720.78 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. 7. During appellate proceedings, remand report was sought from Ld. AO on the arguments raised by the assessee. The assessee relied on earlier orders of Tribunal and submitted that only exempt yielding investments were to be considered to compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's favor that the investments were sourced out of assessee's own funds. We find that no such nexus has been established by Ld. AO. Thirdly, the disallowance as offered by the assessee is in accordance with the earlier decisions of the Tribunal for AYs 2010-11 2011-12. In fact, these decisions were followed in AY 2013-14 vide ITA No. 2282/CHNY/2019 order dated 04/12/2019. The revenue preferred further appeal against the same before Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide TCA No. 250 of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 wherein Hon'ble Court refused to admit the substantial question of law as raised by the revenue. For all the above stated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, dismiss the appeal. 9. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
