2019 (4) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ground no.1 of revenue's appeal is as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), only those investments have to be taken into account from which exempt income has earned ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with the parameters laid down in Rule 8D(2)(iii) & CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, there is no ambiguity that all the investments from which the assessee could have earned exempt income are required to be considered for computing disallowance u/s. 14A." 3. After having heard both the parties and after perusal of the assessment order, we note that the ground raised by the revenue involves the further disallowance of Rs. 35,55,156/- u/s. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd, therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6. Coming to assessee's appeal. The sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under: "For that under the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in confirming the disallowance on account of depreciation claim of Rs. 21,00,707/- u/s. 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I. T. Rules, 1962." 7. Briefly stated facts are that during the year the assessee company filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") showing a total income of Rs. 8,23,14,780/- besides disclosing exempt dividend income of Rs. 40,89,455/- u/s. 10(34) of the Act. In respect to the said exempt incom....