TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 56,55,890/- whereas Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition of ₹ 3,89,51,174/- to ₹ 23,79,288/-. It is pertinent to note that the assessee did not express any grievance by challenging the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) in continuing the addition but to a limited extent. In our considered opinion, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be challenged by the Revenue keeping in view the settled position of law on this aspect and also in view of the fact that the assessee accepted the same without challenging it by way of appeal or cross-objection. We, therefore, upheld the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal. Addition in respect of ESOP alleging the outgoing expenses are only notional and the expenditure is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma, CIT DR ORDER PER K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 29.08.2014 in Appeal No.-0111/2013-14 passing by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short CIT(A) ]-VIII, New Delhi for 2010-11 Assessment Year on the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. (CIT) has erred in restricting the addition u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D from ₹ 3,89,51,174/- to ₹ 23,79,288/-. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 91,89,791/- made by A.O. in respect of expenses debited in P L A/c under the Employee Stock Option Cost ? 3. Whether on the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ific adjudication. 3. Adverting to the first ground, it is the argument of the Ld. DR that the AO was right in calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short Rules ) because the assessee was unable to differentiate that investment so made was not from the common pool funds. Per contra, it is the argument of the Ld. AR that during the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income of ₹ 4,83,547/- and the decision in Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694, is that by no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income was to be disallowed and the window for disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 5. In the given set of circumstances, the assessee themselves allowed ₹ 56,55,890/- whereas Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition of ₹ 3,89,51,174/- to ₹ 23,79,288/-. It is pertinent to note that the assessee did not express any grievance by challenging the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) in continuing the addition but to a limited extent. In our considered opinion, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be challenged by the Revenue keeping in view the settled position of law on this aspect and also in view of the fact that the assessee accepted the same without challenging it by way of appeal or cross-objection. We, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 501/- as such the difference of ₹ 36,04,44,499/- was shown by the assessee in his P L A/c. Ld.AO referred the matter to the Department Valuation Officer (in short DVO ) and accepted the valuation of DVO at ₹ 67,09,04,000/- and added the difference of ₹ 11,23,89,000/- to the income of the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) in his order observed that section 50C(1) of the Act prescribes that where the considerations received by the assessee on sale of land and building is less than the value adopted or assessable by any Stamp Valuation Authority, then the value so adopted or assessable by Stamp Valuation Authority shall be deemed to the full value of the consideration received as a result of transfer of capital assets, and on consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
