9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in short the Act. 2. We advert to rival pleadings. The assessee's sole substantive ground in its appeal ITA No.2476/Ahd/2013 challenges the CIT(A) order confirming Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.61,74,046/- comprising of interest amount of Rs.75,864/- and administrative expenditure of Rs.60,98,182/-, respectively. The Revenue's appeal ITA No.2863/Ahd/2013 on the other hand seeks to revive disallowance/addition of business development expenditure and that of outstanding creditors liability u/s 41(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,21,91,284/- and Rs.2,53,48,895/-; respectively. 3. We come to assessee's appeal first. It prints/publishes newspapers and magazines. The assessee invested sums of Rs.3,37,95,19,606/- and Rs.84,39,32,13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that it had failed to prove nexus between its non-interest bearing funds vis-a-vis the impugned tax free investments. He further concludes that interest expenses of Rs.19,69,881/- had already been debited therein. The CIT(A) accordingly confirms Assessing Officer's findings relating to the impugned disallowance. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 5. We have heard both the parties qua the impugned issue of correctness of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.61,74,046/- in question. There is no dispute about the relevant facts and figures narrated hereinabove pertaining to assessee's tax free investments and exempt income forming subject matter of the instant appeal. Shri Mehta takes us to paper-book page No.104 containing this tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the same to be capital expenditure. Both the ld. Representatives are ad idem that this tribunal's order in assessee's own case for AYs 2005-06 to 2009-10 (supra) follows yet another decision in its case pertaining to AY 2001-02 holding identical business development expenditure to be Revenue in nature. Ld. Departmental Representative fails to point out any distinction on the relevant facts involved. We thus find no reason to interfere in the CIT(A)'s conclusion under challenge. The Revenue fails in its first substantive ground. 7. The Revenue's latter substantive ground seeks to revive section 41(1) addition of outstanding creditors liability of Rs.2,53,48,895/- as added in the course of assessment. The Assessing Officer invoked the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
