2014 (5) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting to Rs. 53,39,256/-." Assessee's appeal ( ITA no. 5220/Del/12): "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming and in further enhancing the disallowance u/s 14A made by the learned assessing officer from Rs. 12,31,562 to Rs. 15,88,450 and thereby making a further disallowance of Rs. 3,56,888/- on estimate basis (in addition to Rs. 3,95,321/- surrendered by appellant company in the return of income) being expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income u/s 10(34) by wrongly invoking the provisions of Sec. 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby not following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Max Opp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 203 Taxman 364 (Del.) 1.1. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come-tax Act, 1961 and the depreciation is admissible." 2.1. After working these relevant and other observations, ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal by following observations: "After hearing both sides and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for Assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 (supra), we dismiss the revenue's appeal." 2.2. It is pleaded that facts and circumstances for the assessment year in question remaining the same, the same course may be adopted. 3. Ld. DR relied on the order of A.O. 4. We have herd rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Since the issue about allowability of depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Max Opp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 203 Taxman 364 (Del); and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81. However, despite copious explanation ld. CIT(A) has not given any effective finding in this regard has been made. Thus, AO's error of not recording satisfaction has not been properly adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). These judgments categorically lay down that unless the AO records a satisfaction about assessee's working being wrong, the assessee's working u/s 14A cannot be disturbed. Besides, on merits also CIT(A) has merely attributed part Directors' salary and made ad hoc estimate of administrative and other expenses towards disall....