TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,863/- on account of disallowance of personal usage. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 63,78,347/- made by AO u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 3(a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was carried out in the cases of Paras Group of cases on 09.09.2010 by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. The search action covered various business premise of the group, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Rs. 7,56,69,500/- i.e. Rs. 3,78,347/- was also disallowed by the AO and total disallowance on account of expenses incurred for earning exempt income as per the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D was Rs,. 63,78,347/- and added to the income of the assessee and income of the asssesee. He completed the assessment at the total income of Rs. 12,46,93,808/- vide order 28.3.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Against the aforesaid assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi, who vide his impugned order dated 28.08.2015 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce made, hence, the same was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order. We further find that there is no exempt income credited in the P&L a/c during the year under consideration and therefore, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was warranted. It is also seen that the assessee company has shareholders funds as on 31.03.2011 to the tune of Rs. 46.81 crores whereas investment in the shares of subsidiary companies is only 15.07 crores. As such the shareholders funds are substantially in excess of amount invested and the logical inference from the same could only be that the impugned investments have been made out of self generated funds and not interest bearing resources. The judgement. of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the....