TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) of the Income Tax, 1961 (for short 'Act') dated 28.03.2014. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal: "1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as per rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules amounting to Rs. 48,29,265/-. 1.2 In doing so, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in the following respects: (a) In not accepting the reasonable basis working made by the appellant for the purpose of making disallowance under section 14A of the Act; (b) in not appreciating the fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act has already suffered tax under section 115-O of the Act. 1.6 Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the provision of sub section (2) and (3) of section 14A are not applicable while computing the book profit under section 115JB. The Appellant hereby reserves the right to add to alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of chemicals had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 16.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 66,20,105/- and 'book profit' under Sec. 115JB of Rs. 1,49,17,240/-. Subsequently, the case of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., worked out the disallowance under Sec.14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 48,29,706/-. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,15,70,540/-. Still further, the A.O raising the 'book profit' under Sec. 115JB by the amount of disallowance made by him under Sec.14A, revised the same at Rs. 1,97,46,505/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee in context of the disallowance made by the AO under Sec.14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 48,29,706/-, was however not persuaded to accept the same and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any more in the backdrop of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra), thus dismiss the same. 6. The ld. A.R assailing the validity of the disallowance made by the AO under Sec. 14A(2) of the Act, submitted that as the disallowance under the aforesaid statutory provision was made by the A.O without being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of its total income under the Act, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, thus could not be sustained on the said count itself and was liable to be vacated. The ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention placed reliance on the jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the exempt dividend income and offered for disallowance under Sec. 14A, had failed to record his satisfaction as regards the correctness of such claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Rather, we find that the A.O had dislodged the claim of disallowance made by the assessee under Sec. 14A on the ground that unlike as in the year under consideration, the assessee had offered disallowances of interest expenditure/other expenses in the preceding years. We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), it is obligatory on the part of the AO to record his satisfaction as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ground that having regard to the accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration, he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of expenses which the assessee had attributed to earning of the exempt income. Rather, a careful perusal of the order of the A.O reveals that he was persuaded to dislodge the claim of disallowance made by the assessee, on the ground that the assessee who in the earlier years was on his own offering the disallowance under Sec. 14A in respect of the interest expenditure in A.Ys 2005-06 to A.Y 2007-08, as well as had further supplemented such disallowance by certain indirect expenses in A.Y 2008-09, had during the year under consideration taken a departure from the said consistent practise w....