TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 investments and interest free funds available w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee 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 respect of large increase in Tailoring and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed 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 qualifying remarks on the issue, in the auditor's report. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(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 reproduce the important figures from the year wise comparative chart s....