TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. This Miscellaneous Application of the assessee was disposed off by this tribunal in M.A.No. 108/Kol/2017 dated 10.11.2017 by holding as under:- 6. In view of the above we hold that the mistake apparent from the record has occurred in the order passed by this Hon'ble ITAT in pursuance to the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. We therefore recall the impugned order for the limited purpose of adjudication of the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A of the Act. Accordingly the registry is directed to fix the case for hearing in due course of time. Hence the ground filed by the assessee in Miscellaneous Application is allowed. 2. Accordingly, this appeal was refixed for this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8D and worked the disallowance as under:- (i) Direct expenses Rs Nil (ii) Interest expenses Rs. 1573.03 lacs (iii) Administrative expenses Rs. 143.00 lacs This action was confirmed by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 17,15,98,000/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act even though the authorities below had not established any nexus between incurring of the expenses of such magnitude with earning of tax-free income. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there having been net reduction in the "I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t forward from earlier years. Moreover, the profits of the assessee for the year also has increased during this year and investments had decreased during the year. We find that this issue is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs Rasoi Ltd in G.A.No. 633 of 2016 . The Jurisdictional High Court after considering the judgement of the co-ordinate bench in Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal) had observed as under:- "It appears for both the assessment years the Appellate Authority held that there was no finding of direct nexus between the borrowed fund and investment in shares. The assessee's own funds were far in excess of the average total investments. There could not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concurrent findings of facts. We, therefore, are not satisfied that the case involves any substantial question of law. The application and appeal are thus dismissed." 4.1. We find that the own funds of the assessee for various asst years together with the value of investments are as under:- ASSESSMENT YEARS Particulars 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 (Rupees in lacs) Share Capital 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 General Reserves 544.30 1105.14 1165.14 1249.15 Profit and Loss A/c 32.53 45.77 568.18 1319.55 Total Own Funds 577.32 1150.91 1733.81 2569.19 Investments 321.02 352.15 295.73 283.46 Profit for the year 572.24 771.52 896.54 1256.55 Increa....