TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the department confirming the order of CIT(A). 2. This Court while admitting the matter framed the following questions of law:- In DBITA No. 202/2017 "i) Whether the Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition made by way of disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act?" ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,35,708/- made by the Assessing Officer on delayed payment of employees contribution of ESI and PF." iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,53,22,418/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 14A read with rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SLP is preferred therefore, in view of the earlier decision taken by this Court, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee subject to SLP pending before the Supreme Court. 4.3. The issue No.3 is regarding 14A. Now the issue is governed by the decision of Supreme Court the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. reported in 394 ITR 449 wherein it has been held as under:- "36. Section 14A as originally enacted by the Finance Act of 2001 with effect from 1.4.1962 is in the same form and language as currently appearing in Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act. Sections 14A (2) and (3) of the Act were introduced by the Finance Act of 2006 with effect from 1.4.2007. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re no relation to the earning of the dividend income and hence the Assessee was entitled to the benefit of full exemption claimed on account of dividend income. 37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the Assessee. Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessin....