2017 (12) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A.Ys. 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The assessee filed both the cross-objections mainly in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The same are therefore, dismissed. 4 Both the Departmental Appeals are decided issuewise as under. ISSUE No.1 5. On Grounds No.1 and 2, in both the Departmental Appeals, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 37,57,442 and Rs. 40,09,335 under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, respectively in both the years. The A.O. noted that assessee-company has investments in shares, the income of which i.e., dividend is exempt from tax. The assesseecompany was specifically asked to give de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oted that Section 14A comes into play only where exempt income has been eared during the relevant period. During the assessment years under appeal, the assessee -company had not earned any dividend income. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs. CIT-VI, New Delhi (supra), both the additions were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. and submitted that Rule 8D is applicable to assessment years under appeal irrespective of earning of income in reference. The tax statute is to be considered strictly. Section 14A(1) is the basic and primary provision, which provides for disallowance of an expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber, 2017. The Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs. CIT-VI, New Delhi (supra) and finding that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee-company, dismissed the Departmental Appeals. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs. CIT-VI, New Delhi (supra). The contention of the Ld. D.R. therefore, rejected. Grounds No.1 and 2 of appeals of the Revenue in both the appeals are dismissed. Issue No.1 is decided against the Revenue. ISSUE No.2 7. In A.Y. 2012-2013, the Revenue on ground No.3 challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 69,61,660 made on the basis o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eecompany filed written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced in the appellate order in which the assesseecompany briefly explained that seized paper shows the amount of the work done of Rs. 57,21,735.60 and service tax of Rs. 12,39,934. The gross total of which is Rs. 69,61,669.60. Central Coal Field Ltd., paid Rs. 68,00,564 after deducting Rs. 1,61,105 on account of statutory dues of TDS etc., This amount of Rs. 68,00,564 was received in ICICI Bank Ltd., by assessee-company on 7th March, 2012 through RTGS. The copy of the bank statement was also filed. The assessee-company also filed copy of the accounts. It was submitted that the planning can be recorded at any time. It was also explained that after receipt of the amount in q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of the assessee12 company and payments mentioned in the seized documents have been made to the three parties. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore, on proper appreciation of all the seized documents in reference to the books of account, correctly deleted the addition. There is no merit in ground No.3 of appeal of the Revenue. Ground No.3 is accordingly dismissed. Issue No.2 is decided against the Revenue. ISSUE No. 3 : 9. In A.Y. 2013-2014, on ground No.3 the Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,97,784 on account of unexplained cash found during search. The A.O. asked the assessee-company to explain source of the cash. The assesseecompany submitted that during the course of search proceedings, cash amounting to Rs. 6,47,000 ....