TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that the Tribunal in immediate preceding year [ 2019 (9) TMI 1646 - ITAT CHENNAI] deleted the addition in regard to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) but sustained the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs.32,213/-. Even now, the ld.counsel for the assessee agreed that the order of CIT(A) to the extent of same investment made of Rs.64,42,600/- can be considered for making disallowance u/s.8D(2)(iii) and hence, the order of CIT(A) can be reversed. In view of the above, we are of the view that this issue is covered by Tribunal s order in earlier year against the assessee and hence, we reverse the order of CIT(A) to the extent of disallowance of Rs.32,213/- deleted by CIT(A) under Rule 8D(2)(iii). This issue of Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. The CIT(A) noted that the issue is settled by the Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No.356/Mds/2017, order dated 21.09.2017, wherein the same amount was under consideration and the Tribunal deleted the disallowance by observing in para 5.5 as under:- 5.5 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that both the assessee and its sister company are dealers in automobiles of different nature and engaged in business with close proximity. The combined endurance to market the products in the same vicinity results in close commercial ties between the assessee company and its siste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Subba Reddy, (2016) 97 CCH 0157 and Sunil Kapoor vs. CIT, 375 ITR 1 deleted the addition by observing in para 6.4 as under:- 6.4 I have perused the facts of the case and past judicial precedents. The facts and circumstances are similar for the Assessment year 2014-15. It is pertinent to note that the Honorable ITAT has relied on the Madras High Court s decision in the case of CIT vs. Subba Reddy, (2016) 97 CCH 0157. They have also relied on the Boards Circular No.F.279/MISC/140/2015/ITJ dated 12.01.2017. The Honorable ITAT has also cited the Madras High Court s decision in the case of Sunil Kapoor vs. CIT, 375 ITR 1. It is therefore decided that since the case is covered by favourable decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No.356/Mds/2017, order dated 21.09.2017 by observing as under:- 5.1 Disallowance of Rs.4,67,182/- u/s.14A The AO applied the provisions of Rule 8D and quantified proportionate interest expenditure of Rs.4,34,969/-and administrative expenditure of Rs.32,213/- for disallowance u/s.14A. During the year the appellant company received a total amount of Rs.1080/- as dividend, on an investment of Rs.64,42,600/- in shares. The appellant explained that the entire investments in shares were made years back, out of the appellant company s own surplus. The Hon ble ITAT, Chennai, in a detailed appellate order in ITA No.356/Mds/2017 dated 21.09.2017 passed for the AY 2013-14, on the basis of similar facts and reasons deleted the disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
