TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-48/I.T.-63/DCCC- 2(4)/2015-16 dated 21/02/2018 on following grounds of appeal: - (1)(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeals has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 40,55,723/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and adding it to the total income of the appellant. (b) The Ld. CIT Appeals failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had received dividend from investments made in subsidiary companies, which were for the purpose of business. (c) The Ld. CIT Appeals failed to consider that the appellant is a Real Estate Company & all expenses claimed in its accounts were incurred for the purpose of business & thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT Appeals failed to consider Special Bench decision which has decided the issue in favour of the appellant." As evident from grounds of appeal, the sole issue involved in the appeal is quantum of disallowance u/s 14A and adjustment thereof while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB. 2.2 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in Real Estate Development was assessed for impugned AY on 05/03/2015 in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer-Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai [AO]. The income under normal provision was determined at Rs. 235.84 Lacs after sole disallowance u/s 14A for Rs. 40.55 Lacs as against returned income of Rs. 195.39 Lacs e-filed by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the other hand, there has been reduction in investments held by the appellant during the year. (c) The Ld. CIT Appeals failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had received dividend on investments made in subsidiary companies, which were for the purpose of business. (d) The Ld. CIT Appeals failed to consider that the appellant is a Real Estate Company & all expenses claimed in its accounts were incurred for the purpose of business & thus no part of it can be disallowed under Rule 8D(iii). 2.(a) Without prejudice to the above ground even if disallowance is made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in directing the Ld. AO to add it to the total income of the appellant instead of reducing it from Work in Progress. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee's own funds were more than the investments. However, expense disallowance of Rs. 46 Lacs was confirmed and Ld. AO was directed to consider the same separately for taxation purposes. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Parkash Jotwani, drawing our attention to the financials of the assessee, submitted that majority of the expenditure incurred by the assessee during impugned AY was directed towards construction activities only and therefore, impugned additions were not warranted. Per Contra, Ld. DR submitted that the disallowance was to be worked out as per formula given in Rule 8D. It was also brought to the notice that similar disallowance m....