2019 (7) TMI 1590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax is wrong and erroneous both in fact and in law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,857/- under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 80 of Income Tax Rules 1962 as against nil disallowance by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,78,078 u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in fact and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nging the impugned addition made on account of disallowance of Rs. 20,857/- contended that since the assessee has not incurred any expenses during the year under assessment, the addition is not sustainable because the assessee has earned income by way of dividend on investment in mutual funds invested in earlier years in which dividend received got automatically reinvested as per standing instructions given by the assessee at the time of initial investment. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relying upon the order passed by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A) contended that to earn the dividend, indirect expenses cannot be ruled out. 8. Perusal of the assessment order as well as the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) goes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see contended that as per advice rendered by the tax auditor, the assessee was not required to deduct the tax at source in view of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Wipro Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 9 (Bang.). However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that the said decision rendered by the Tribunal has been overruled by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court cited as CIT vs. M/s. Wipro Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann.com and as such, this ground is liable to dismissed. 11. Undisputedly, assessee has not deducted the tax at source by relying upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Wipro Ltd. vs. ITO (supra). It is also not in....