TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its hand is acceptable, since the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR is duly supported by the judgment of Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [ 2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER] and in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Oil Industries Dev. Board [ 2019 (3) TMI 1571 - SC ORDER] . Thus disallowance u/s 14A gets restricted to the extent of exempt income, even if the provisions of the section are attracted. In view of the above precedents, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, we limit the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. - Shri Ravish Sood, JM And Shri Arun Khodpia, AM For the Assessee : Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d when asked for. Books of accounts a/w. bills, vouchers and bank statements have also been filed for verification which were checked by the A.O on random basis. The case of the assessee was discussed with the Ld. AR and after deliberations, one addition was made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs. 59,13,532/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said addition made by the A.O, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 4. To challenge the decision of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), now the assessee is appeal before us assailing the issue pertaining to the disallowance of Rs. 59,13,532/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. 5. At the very outset of hearing of the appeal, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w.e.f. 01.04.2022, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that amendment made vide the Finance Act, 2022 in Section 14A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation after the proviso has no retrospective effect and therefore, the said amendment could not be applied in the present case before us. Reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 114 CCH 219 (Del.HC) wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that amendment made vide the Finance Act, 2022 in Section 14A by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation after the proviso has taken effect from 01.04.2022, could not be permitted to have retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already been discussed and provision was interpreted by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi and decided that effective change in provision could not be presumed to have retrospective effect, therefore, same will be applicable prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2022 only. Thus, we in our considered view, in the present case before us which pertains to A.Y.2013-14, are of the opinion that change in provision of Section 14A will have no retrospective binding effect. 8. As regards the contention of the Ld. AR that now when the assessee company had not received any exempt income during the year under consideration, therefore, no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was called for in its hand, we find substance in the same, since the aforesaid contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4A, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Computation of) Assessment year 2010-11 In course of assessment, Assessing Officer made addition on account of apportionment of expenses against exempted income under section 14A Commissioner passed a revisional order directing Assessing Officer to enhance amount of addition under section 14A Tribunal set aside revisional order as well as consequent assessment order passed by Assessing Officer enhancing addition made under section 14A High Court upheld order of Tribunal holding that amount of disallowance under section 14A could be restricted to amount of exempt income only and not a higher figure W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
