TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heard together and involve common issues therefore, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos. 81 & 82/PNJ/2014 2. The common issue in both these years relates to the deletion of addition made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D for A.Y. 2008-09 Rs. 22,44,429/- and for A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 34,75,801/-. While scrutinizing the return of income for the years under consideration, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-company has shown other income from share of profit from partnership firm and income from dividend. These income were claimed as exempt from tax. The assessee was asked to submit explanation regarding application of sec. 14A read with Rule 8D in case of expenditure in relation to exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made out of own funds and no borrowed fund was used for making such investment. It was pointed out to the Ld. CIT(A) that the investment in partnership firm is not a new investment made during the year. It was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee suo motu disallowed Rs. 1,47,706/- in A.Y. 2008-09 & Rs. 11,82,924/- in A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, there is no question of any further disallowance of the expenditure debited to the P & L account or related to the normal business operation of the assessee. After considering the facts and submissions and certain judicial decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments and the Assessing Officer has not disputed this fact in the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the portfolio manager. It is also an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has nowhere recorded his dissatisfaction on the claim of expenditure attributable to the disallowance u/s. 14A made by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the coordinate Benches mentioned hereinabove, we, therefore, decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). C.O.No. 24/PNJ/2014 8. With this cross objection, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the partial disallowance of expenditure incurred by the company on advertisement taking a narrow view and without appreciating the commercial expediency involved in it. 9. This issue has been considered by the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d submissions and carefully perusing the details, Ld. CIT(A) found that out of total expenditure of Rs. 11,71,431/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- has been spent towards renovation of Bandeshwar temple in the name of advertising, company's name has been displayed. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that this expenditure is clearly in the nature of religious expenditure, related to faith and not the business of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that only expenditure amounting to Rs. 23,925/- can be considered for allowance u/s. 37(1) of the Act and, accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to allow expenses amounting to Rs. 23,925/- as corporate social responsibility expenses, thereby affirming the disallowance of Rs. 11,47,506/-. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re to be incurred. The expenditure is neither a capital expenditure nor personal expenditure of the Assessee. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of CIT(A) while allowing this deduction. Thus, we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, this ground stands dismissed." It is say of the counsel that the facts being identical, decision of the coordinate bench should be followed. 12. Per contra, learned DR strongly opposed to this and stated that the said expenditure has nothing to do with the business of the assessee and, therefore, cannot be allowed. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and have given a thoughtful consideration to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prime Mine....