AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....einafter called "the AO") u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") for AY 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") read as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made of Rs. 33,20,476/- made by the A.O. u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 2. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sub-clause 2(ii) i.e. AxB/C. Here A is Rs. 44,11,84,882/- as mentioned in (1) above. Similarly, B is Rs. 9,87,13,571/- and C is Rs. 13,11, 58,72,103/- as mentioned in (2} & (3) above respectively. The calculation is as given below. 441 184882/-x 9,87,13.571/ 13,11, 58,72,103= Rs. 32,20,476/-. 5.5 Further a disallowance of Rs. 4,93,568/- is made one half percent of the overage value of investment which is resulting into payment of dividend to the Assessee Company as per sub clause 2(iii)of the rule 8D. The assessee had contended before the AO that it has its own funds which were more than the investment made in the securities capable of yielding exempt income and hence Rule 8D2(ii) of the 1962 Rules r.w.s. 14A could not be applied as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh the decisions relied upon by the appellant. As far as the interest expenditure on borrowed loans is concerned, it is seen that the appellant has made investments in equity shares in the earlier years and has shown availability of funds from internal accruals to cover the investment in equity shares as can be seen from the above table reproduced in the appellant's submissions. Therefore clause (i) &(ii) of Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules were not applicable in the appellant's case. However, certain administrative expenditure is required for making and maintaining investment in equity shares. The decision making personal of the company have to devote time and efforts to decide whether the investment is to be made or not and if already made whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loss of Rs. 68,93,36,051/- which loss was revised by the assessee by filing revised return of income on 19.10.2011 showing current loss of Rs. 68,53,14,666/- for the impugned assessment year. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of transformers, electronic energy meters and turn key projects. The assessee received dividend income Rs. 3,92,298/- which was claimed as an exempt income u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The whole controversy in this appeal before the tribunal revolves around disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) of the 1962 Rules wherein Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the 1962 Rules was invoked by the AO to disallow interest expenditure to the tune of Rs. 32,20,476/- on the pretext mainly of use of mixed fund used by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption is rebutted with cogent evidences. The reliance is placed on decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340(Bom. HC) as well as decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2016) 383 ITR 529(Bom) . Thus under these circumstances , we are of the considered view that no disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D2(ii) can be made of the interest expenditure as is contemplated by the AO. However the facts available on records does not reflect the availability of own funds as at the beginning of the previous year as at 01-04-2010 as also at the end of the previous year as on 31-03-2011. The assessee has stressed on the availabili....