TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 25/02/2016 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). ITA No.2507/Mum/2018 (AY :2014-15) Assessee appeal: This appeal in ITA No.2507/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-52/IT/DC-CC-4(2)/645/2016-17 dated 05/02/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 29/11/2016 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). ITA No.2983/Mum/2018 (AY :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter granting statutory deduction under the head 'income from house property' u/s.24 of the Act, sought to determine the taxable income from house property in respect of this property at Rs. 43,42,946/-. This addition was made by the ld. AO on the basis of similar addition being made for A.Yrs.2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in assessee's own case where the additions were confirmed by the first appellate authority and the appeals were pending before this Tribunal at the behest of the assessee at the time of framing of assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 20/01/2016 of its authorized representative submitted that no notional house property income was taxable in India in respect of self-occupied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly arrived at the taxable income of Rs. 43,42,946/- under the head income from house property' in respect of property at Palm Signature Villa, Dubai. Since, similar addition was confirmed by this Tribunal for A.Yrs. 2009-10 and 2010-11 in assessee's own case reported in 164 ITD 18, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition. 3.1. Before us, the ld. AR fairly stated that the issue of addition per se has been decided against the assessee by this Tribunal reported in 164 ITD 18 after taking into account all the contentions raised by the assessee. The ld. AR before us contested only for adoption of 10% increase made by the ld. AO on an adhoc basis from the valuation report submitted by the assessee. The ld. AR argued that the same valuer who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee are partly allowed. 4. The last issue to be decided in this appeal for A.Y.2013-14 is with regard to disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. 4.1 We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee had earned exempt income in the sum of Rs. 1,42,000/- in the form of dividend. The assessee had made suomoto disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- in the return of income. The ld. AO however, on perusal of the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the assessee observed that the assessee has been maintaining office premises, staff etc., for which he has been debiting expenses in the nature of office rent, salary, depreciation an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed figure allow set off of Rs. 50,000 suomoto disallowance already made by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by this action, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We find that the ld. AR vehemently argued that there is no objective satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO as to why the disallowance made by the assessee is incorrect and as to why the provisions of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules would come into operation. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited reported in 394 ITR 449 among other decisions. In this regard, we find that the ld. AO had specifically gone into the various expenditure heads that were debited in the profit and loss account and had arrived at an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the rescue of the assessee in the instant case as the ld. AO had indeed recorded objective satisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had directed the ld. AO to consider only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income for the purpose of working out the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the rules. This is in consonance with the Special Bench Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27. We are in complete agreement with such direction of the ld. CIT(A). We further direct the ld. AO that in any case, the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. From the disallowance so computed as per....