TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e take up ITA No. 2009/Kol/2014 for A.Y. 10-11. 3. First issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.59,75,517/- under the provision of Sec. 14A r.w.r Rule-8D of IT Rules, 1962. 4. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a limited company and engaged in production of green leaf and manufacturing of tea, chemicals and fertilizers etc. The assessee in the year under consideration has disallowed a sum of Rs.45,15,400/- under the provision of Sec. 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D of the IT Rules. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not made any disallowance on account of interest expense. Thus, AO worked out the disallowance of the interest as per the provision of Rule8D(2)(ii) which comes out for Rs.59,75,517/- and the impugned amount of interest was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld CIT(A) submitted that no borrowed fund has been utilized in the impugned investment as there was sufficient own fund available with it. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2008-09 and the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) delet ing the said disal lowance was upheld by the Tr ibunal vide its order dated 13.07.2016 passed in ITA No. 2773/KOL/2013 for the following reasons given in paragraphs no. 6 & 7 of its order: - "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. Admit tedly the disal lowance u/s 14A to the tune of Rs. 92,89,825/ - have been made by the ld. AO by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D(2)( i i) of the Rules. We f ind that the assessee company is having share capital of Rs. 10.67 crores and suf f icient f ree reserves of Rs. 123.67 crores as on 31.3.2007 and Rs. 137.99 crores as on 31.3.2008, but whereas the total investments as on 1.4.2007 was ITA No.2009-2010/Kol/2014 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 201-12 crores. We f ind that the ld. CIT(A) had given rel ief af ter going through the copy of the agreement of consort ium of the banks and sanct ion let ters of the banks submit ted by the assessee that the loan was sanct ioned for the purpose of working capi tal and purchase of f ixed assets. We hold tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disallowance u/s 14A of the Act . We also f ind that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT -vs. - HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) had also held the same view. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and f indings and respect fully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had r ight ly deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case to the tune of Rs. 92,89,825/ -. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed" . As the issue involved in the year under considerat ion as well as all the mater ial facts relevant thereto are simi lar to that of A.Y. 2008-09, we respect ful ly fol low the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in A.Y. 2008-09 and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) delet ing the disal lowance made by the Assessing Of f icer on account of proport ionate interest under Rule 8D(2)( ii ). Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed. " Respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra) as there was no change in the facts of the case. We uphold the impugned order of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso covered in assessee's own case by Tribunal's decision in ITA No.2248/K/2010 for AY 2006-07 but he placed reliance on assessment order. We have gone through the Tribunal's decision as well as the order of CIT(A) for this assessment year and find that this issue is covered in favour of assessee and based on that the addition is deleted. Taking a consistent view, we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue and revenue's ground of appeal is dismissed." In the background of the above discussions and precedent and respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case (supra) we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold the same. This ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 12. Last issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs.59,75,517/- on account of expenses retable to exempt income under the provision of Sec.115JB of the Act. 13. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, has added the expense disallowed u/s 14A r.w.r Rule 8D of IT Rules under the provision of clause (f) to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of the assessee, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd. in GO No.1501 of 2014 (ITAT No.47 of 2014) dated 19.11.14 has held that the disallowance in relation to exempted income needs to be made as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act independently. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:- "we find computation of the amount of expenditure relatable to exempted income of the assessee must be made since the assessee has not claimed such expenditure to be Nil. Such computation must be made by applying clause (f) of Explanation 1 under section 115JB of the Act. We remand the matter for such computation to be made by the learned Tribunal. We accept the submission of Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate that the provision of section 115JB in the matter of computation is a complete code in itself and resort need not and cannot be made to section 14A of the Act." Therefore, the argument placed by Ld. AR for the assessee that the instant issue is already covered in favour of assessee does not hold good. Indeed the disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.s 8D of the IT Rule....