TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 on this issue, has held that the same was not a capital expenditure but was Revenue expenditure. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also and the same is accordingly upheld. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee has submitted that the total disallowance made during the year u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) has exceeded the total dividend income earned by the assessee during the year - HELD THAT:- Considering the above submissions, the decision of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [ 2014 (7) TMI 44 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and . Cheminvest Ltd Vs. ITO [ 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] are squarely applicable, wherein, it has been held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the total exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same is upheld. Addition u/s 36(i)(iii) - Interest on investment in sister concerns - HELD THAT:- CIT-A correctly deleted addition by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that assessee had made investment in shares of its sister concern out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and thereby allowing relief of ₹ 54,48.074/- to the assesses. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off. 4. Ground Nos. (i) (ii) : Ground Nos. (i) (ii) of the Revenue s appeal relates to the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing officer u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') amounting to ₹ 29,27,987/-. The Assessing officer made the impugned disallowance as he found that assessee had not deposited the Employees Contribution to EPF, ESI and labour welfare fund within the prescribed due date although the payment was made before the due date of filing of the return. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance while relying upon the various case laws including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 taxman 416 / 319 ITR 306 (SC). 5. After hearing the Ld. representatives of the parties, we noted that the Ld. CIT(A) inter alia has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. 226 Taxman 45 (P H) and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd Vs. ITO (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) are squarely applicable, wherein, it has been held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the total exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same is upheld. 9. Ground No. (v) is general in nature and does not require and adjudication. In view of the above, this appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.432/Chd/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12) 10. The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeals. (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in restricting the addition of ₹ 63,51,915/- to ₹ 4,99,945/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and thereby allowing relief of ₹ 58,52,000/- to the assessee. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowance made by the Assessing officer u/s 36(i)(iii) of ₹ 59,06,706/- which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that assessee had made investment in shares of its sister concern out of his own funds and that no borrowed funds were used for making such investment. We have gone through the paras 7.2 7.3 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) and do not find any reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are upheld. 13. Ground Nos. (iii) to (v) : These grounds are similar to that of the ground Nos. (i) to (iii) of the Revenue appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in in ITA No. 431/Chd/2017 (above). In view of our findings given above while deciding the issue taken by the Revenue vide ground Nos. (i) to (iii) for assessment year 2010-11 of the appeal, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same are upheld. 14. Ground No. (vi) : This ground is squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench (Delhi) of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 502/Delhi/2012 relating assessment year 2008-09 order dated 16.6.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost of shares under section 48(ii) of the Act. (vi) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off. 17. Ground Nos. (i) to (iv) : These grounds are similar to that of the ground Nos. (i) to (iv) of the Revenue appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in in ITA No. 431/Chd/2017. In view of our findings given above while deciding the issue taken by the Revenue vide ground Nos. (i) to (iv) for assessment year 2010-11 of the appeal, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same are upheld. 18. Ground No.(v) : In respect of the ground No.(v), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) relating to the disallowance made by the Assessing officer u/s 36(i)(iii) of ₹ 39,13,172/- which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that assessee had made investment in sister concern out of his own funds and that no borrowed funds were used for making such investment. 19. We have gone through the para 11.2 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) and do not find any reason to interfere in the wellreasoned order of the CIT(A) on this issue. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
