TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....phone expenses Rs. 4,43,440/- (b) Car running and maintenance Rs. 2,72,628/- (c) Depreciation on car Rs. 2,57,445/- Total: Rs. 9,73,513/- 4.(i) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,54,853/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. (ii) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the share application money of Rs. 1,66,46,000/- for the purpose of calculation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) ignoring the fact that share application money is not capable of earning exempt income. 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify the above grounds of appeal." ITA 1862/Del/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 "1. That the order of Ld.CIT(Appeals) is bad in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the ground no.2 agitating the issuing of notice u/s 153A as general and thereby not adjudicating upon the same. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the ad ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereby not adjudicating upon the same. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the ad hoc disallowance @ 10% on account of personal use amounting to Rs. 2,68,488/- out of following expenses:- (a) Telephone expenses Rs. 2,84,591/- (b) Conveyance Rs. 74,358/- (c) Interest on car loan Rs. 7,62,764/- (e) Depreciation on car Rs.15,63,165/- Total : Rs. 26,84,878/- 4.(i) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 13,07,963/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. (ii) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the share application money of Rs. 1,01,95,375/- for the purpose of calculation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) ignoring the fact that share application money is not capable of earning exempt income. ITA 1865/Del/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 1. That the order of Ld.CIT(Appeals) is bad in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the ground no.2 agitating the issuing of notice u/s 153A as general and thereby not adjudicating upon the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blications Pvt. Ltd., for assessment year 2008-09 is taken up first. 4.1. Ld.AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and, therefore, do not require any adjudication. 4.2. He submitted that Ground No. 2 to be considered as 'not pressed'. Accordingly ground No. 2 stands dismissed as 'not pressed'. 5. Ground No. 3 is in respect of sustaining the ad-hoc disallowance at 10% on account of personal use amounting to Rs. 97,351/-out of telephone expenses, car running and maintenance expenses and depreciation on car. Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a company and is an entity recognised by law, as a legal person, that exist in eyes of law independently with rights and liabilities. Thus no element of personal expenses by Directors/Office bearers can be attributed, without, there being sufficient evidence in support. He submitted that assessee filed all requisite details, vouchers, as has been observed by Ld.AO in assessment order, regarding expenses claimed and Ld.AO has not pointed out any instances/fault in the same. Ld.AR submitted that Ld.AO has, without any basis, disallowed expenses at 10%. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that telephones are installed at office premis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear, expenditure under section 14 A could be disallowed against anticipated income. 6.3. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that this decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court stands approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein SLP filed by revenue stands dismissed in case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logestic's Pvt.Ltd., reported in (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 250. 6.4. Ld. DR though supported order passed by authorities below, could not controvert the afore stated view taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court. 6.5. We have perused submissions advanced by both the sides in light of the records placed before us. 6.6. It is observed that view taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT, reported in (2009) 121 ITD 318 supports the view taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court. Further admittedly assessee has not earned any exempt income during relevant assessment year under consideration and accordingly the issue stands squarely covered by afore stated decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Madras High Court. 6.7. In view of above we allow ground raised by assessee and delete disallowance computed by Ld.AO under section 14A read with Rule 8D for year under conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of disallowance computed by Ld.AO under section 14 A read with Rule 8D of the Act. 13.1. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that, admittedly there is no dividend income earned by assessee during year under consideration, in order to invoke provisions of section 14 A. He referred to observations of Ld.CIT (A) wherein, finding has been recorded regarding no exempt income been earned by assessee. It has been submitted that Ld.CIT(A), relied upon Circular 5, dated 11/02/14 for computing disallowance under section 14 A of the Act. 13.2. Placing reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logestic's Pvt.Ltd., reported in (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 221, wherein Hon'ble Court followed the decision of its Coordinate Bench in case of Redington (India) Ltd vs ACIT reported in (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 257, wherein Hon'ble Court rejected argument of revenue that, whether or not exempt income was earned in a concerned Assessment Year, expenditure under section 14 A could be disallowed against anticipated income. 13.3. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that this decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court stands approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein SLP....