TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) erred in restricting the addition u/s 14A read with rule 80 from Rs. 1,78,71,632/- to Rs. 35,10,8441- ? 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances .of the case & law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,68,10,2431- made by the A.O. in respect of expenses debited in P&L A/c under the "Employee Stock Option cost"? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & law, the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in nature as the same is in contradiction with the facts as clarified by CBDT vide Circular No. 9/2007 issued on 20.12.2007? 4 That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5 That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submits that ground no. 2 and 3 stand covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 23.6.2014 in I.T.A. No. 4588/Del/13. He submitted that the revenue had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court against the deletion of the disallowance of ESOP expenses for assessment year 2008-09 in I.T.A. No. 107/2015. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has upheld the order of this Tribunal and held that ESOP could be debited to the Profit & Loss account of the assessee by following the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT-III Chennai vs PVP Ventures Ltd. in TC(A) No.1023 of 2005 and in the case of CIT vs Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 2/2002 by the Juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he year. 4.2. Ld. AR submitted that the loans on which interest has been paid by the assessee during the year under consideration pertain to specific hotel projects undertaken by the assessee across the country. He submitted that the sanction letters of various loans on which interest has been paid by the assessee are placed at pages 83 to 135 of the Paper Book. Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee did not obtain any loan specifically for investment in shares, no interest expenditure is attributable to such investment and question of disallowance of attributable interest expenditure does not arise to the facts in hand. Ld. AR placed his reliance on the following decisions:- a) Relaxo Footwears Ltd. vs ACIT (20-12) 18 taxmann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....controlling interest in those companies which are also in the same line of business as the assessee. Further, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 9,10,081 during the year which has been claimed as exempt in the return of income. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee has not made any suo moto disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D. 6.2. It is an accepted position that as the year under consideration is 2009-10, Rule 8D is applicable to the assessee and that there has to be a disallowance u/s14 A of the Act, that needs to be made in the event of earning any exempt income from investments made by the assessee during an assessment year. The disallowance u/R. 8D has to made by applying, sub clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub sec....