TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds 2 to 5, the grievance of the Revenue is regarding part deletion of the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii). In this regard, learned DR of the Revenue supported the Assessment Order. He submitted that this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) as per para 5.4 of his order and the disallowance was deleted by learned CIT(A) on this basis that the AO has not been able to identify any specific transaction or fund flow showing that specifically linked to the investment activity. He submitted that as per Rule 8D(2)(ii), proportionate disallowance is to be made when the AO is not able to establish nexus of investment with interest bearing borrowed funds and the assessee is also not able to establish nexus between the invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtent of exempt income earned by the assessee in the present year i.e., Rs. 14,000/- and as per the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having rendered in the case of Sivan Securities (supra) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the disallowance under section 14A cannot the exceed the exempt income earned in the relevant year and hence, respectfully following the judicial precedence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly revised grounds 2 to 5 raised by the Revenue are rejected. 5. In Revised grounds 6 and 7 of the Revenue's appeal, the issue involved is regarding deletion of disallowance made by the AO in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lakhs. It is submitted that, this expenditure was increased in respect of approximately one thousand dealers spread across India, by way of conducting such marketing events, to argument the business turnover. It is apparent from the AO's order that, there is no specific finding of fact recorded against the genuineness of the impugned-expenditures. The AO has not disputed the fact that payments were actually made / incurred in the normal course of assessee's business. There is no discussion whatsoever by the AO to conclude that, such marketing events actually never occurred, during the period under consideration. The assessee's accounts are auditable from year to year. The AO has not pointed cut any adverse comments or qualifyin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted that the disallowance made by the AO has been deleted by CIT(A) without any valid basis and therefore, on this issue also, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the AO should be restored. As against this, the learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). At this juncture, the Bench wanted to see the comparative chart of such warranty provision and actual expenses in the present year and the preceding 4 years. In reply, the learned AR of the assessee submitted a chart showing warranty provision made by the assessee in Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 as per which the provision made in the preceding year is reversed in the succeeding year. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that a liability is a present obligation arising from past events. Similarly, in para 13 of the same judgment, it is observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that a past event that leads to a present obligation is called an obligating event and the obligating event is an event that creates an obligation which results in an outflow of resources. In the same para 13, it is observed that for a liability to quality for recognition, there must be not only present obligation but also the probability of outflow of resources to settle that obligation. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that from the past history, there is no likelihood that the obligation of warranty will result into an outflow of resource....