TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,06,716/- (being investments made by the assessee in M/s Munjal Kiriu Industries (P) Ltd, M/s Hero Chassis System (P) Ltd. And M/s Hero Global Design Ltd.) for working out the amount of average and investment for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A, by holding that there is no nexus between the interest paid by the appellant and the investments made in these companies." 3. The brief facts are as under:- During the Assessment Year the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has invested Rs. 88,26,71,955/- in the assets which will result in tax exempt income. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why disallowance u/s 14A should not be made. The assessee submitted the reply. After going through the submissions of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Rule 8D by the CIT(A). 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee company had been incurring heavy losses for the past 7 years and was borrowing huge amount of funds for the purpose of its business. Yet, at the same time, it had given loss advances to the parties mentioned hereinabove. The Assessing Officer rightly observed that there are no business purposes or advantage brought out by the assessee to justify such huge advances without impression being given to related concerns or without any commercial reason particularly without its financial condition was bad. The Assessing Officer also relied on Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 where in it was held that as per the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. Thus, the argument of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was rejected and expenses attributable to exempt income was computed as per Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules 1962. The CIT(A) was erroneous in allowing the this issue by holding that company had not earned any dividend income during the year and no new investments were made during the year. The said investments were existing investments and was made in earlier years with the assessee had transferred its undertakings on a slump sale basis. 5. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties it is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has observed that the company had not earned any dividend income during the year as well as no new investment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penses incurred for earning exempt income out of such investments and there is no evidence that working capital loan may not have been deployed for making such investment, therefore, the lack of satisfaction of the AO with the claim of the assessee that no expenses were incurred for earning dividend income from such investments. The AO while disallowing this has not brought on record anything to establish that the assessee had incurred any expenses while earning this exempt income and he has not given any finding in this respect. Therefore, the action of the AO in disallowing the dividend income u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is not just and proper. 7. In case of CIT-II vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. (ITA No. 331/2009 (O&M): decided on 04.11.2009) the ....