TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghtly deleted the addition in light of the decisions of case of Cheminvest Ltd. [ 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Holcim Ltd. [ 2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and there is no need to interfere with the same in light of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. In fact, the issue is covered by the decision of the Apex Court decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. 3. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee, hence we are taking the submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A). 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not just and proper in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D and relied upon the assessment order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is covered by the decision of the Apex Court decision in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 17th Day of February, 2021 in presence of Ld. DR. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
