2020 (10) TMI 1026

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal, 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad dated 6th January, 2020 in the ITA No.2617/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y.2013-14. 3. The Revenue has proposed the following question for the consideration of this Court:- "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made on account of interest expenditure under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) by holding that disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed disallowance made in the return of income?" 4. It appears from the materials on record that in the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-Company, during the year under consideration, had earned exempt income of Rs. 11,83,96,894/- and there were huge in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er:- "6. We have all the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the exempted income declared by the assessee is of Rs. 11,83,96,894.00 only which is not in dispute. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Private Ltd reported in 45 taxmann.com 116 has held that the amount of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of the exempted income. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: "Section 14A(1) provides that for the purpose of computing total income under chapter IV, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. " 7. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is here before this Court with the present appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Assessee. 9. We do not find any material infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to warrant any interference in this appeal. The question as proposed by the Revenue is no longer res integra in view of the following decisions:- "1) In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 vs. V....