AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITA No.3614/M/2016 (assessee's appeal ) 2. Ground No.4 is not pressed during the course of hearing and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that ground No.1 is not being argued, however, assessee reserves the right to argue the said issue in future and therefore it wants to keep the issue alive. The Ld. D.R. did not oppose the arguments of the Ld. A.R. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we hold that ground No.1 need not to be adjudicated at this stage. 4. The issue raised in ground No.2 is against the confirmation of disallowance by Ld CIT(A) as made by the AO under section 14A read with rule 8D in the assessment order on the ground th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 8D is upheld. Regarding the calculation errors pointed out by the appellant, it is held as under: i. It has been held by various courts that the interest expenses to be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D is the net interest expense after setting off interest income. Moreover, the interest expenses already disallowed will also have to be excluded from the gross interest expenses for calculating interest disallowance under Rule 8D. ii. Regarding average value of investment, it is seen from perusal of the appellant's financials that the value adopted by the Assessing Officer is correct Perusal of Schedule F of the balance sheet shows investment as on 31.03.2010 at Rs. 379,59,40,0007- and as on 31.03.2011 at Rs. 128,18,91,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 SC wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a privilege granted by the Act can not become a disadvantage as in that case the assessee was permitted to disclaim depreciation since that was more beneficial to the assessee. The Ld. A.R. also drew the attention of the bench to the assessment orders passed by the AO in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 wherein the AO has accepted the similar claim made by the assessee in not claiming exemption in respect of dividend income. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Revenue has to follow a consistent treatment as it has accepted the claim in the earlier years and the said claim can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s referred to by the Ld. A.R. We find from the perusal of the record that during the year the assessee has not claimed any exempt income under section 10(35) of the Act but instead reduced the same from the interest claimed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and only net claim of interest was made. The said position has been accepted by the Revenue itself in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010- 11 in the assessment proceedings as is clear from the perusal of assessment orders placed before us. We are in agreement with the contentions of the Ld. A.R. that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable if income is not claimed as exempt. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of Credit Lyonnais vs. ACIT (supra) and CIT vs. Cortech....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... borrowing would be the gross interest expenses as neted off by interest income earned from deployment of such borrowed funds. 13. The facts in brief are that during the assessment proceedings, the AO rejected the computation of average cost of borrowing as submitted by the assessee on the ground that assessee has neted off the interest and dividend income against the finance charges to compute the cost of borrowing. According to the AO the dividend income has been allowed as exempt income whereas interest income has been assessed to tax separately as income from other sources and hence instead of net interest expenses gross interest expenses should be considered for the purpose of computation of average cost of borrowing. Accordingly, the....