TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and void-ab-initio. 2. That on facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- out of disallowance of Rs. 10,88,07,784/- u/s 14A of the Act 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2, the disallowance u/s 14A has been confirmed by CIT(A) in the absence of any exempt income earned by the appellant ignoring the judgments of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Limited vs. ITO, duly cited before him. 4. That on facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, initially offered as disallowable u/s 14A of the Act in the return of income which was withdrawn before CIT(A) in the absence of any exempt income. 5. That on facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 5,57,500/- incurred on corporate social responsibility claimed as business expenditure eligible u/s 37(1) of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to Ground No. 5, the appellant submits that deduction, if any, eligible u/s 80G of the Act may be allowed on the payment of Rs. 5,57,500/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs. 10,86,07,784/- u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself has made ad-hoc disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- by identifying various expenses incurred on employees, establishment expenses etc., suo-moto? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs. 10,86,07,784/- under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even when the Ld. CIT(A) itself rejected the ground of appeal of the assessee for "Withdrawal of Disallowance Rs. 2,00,000/-" by holding that the assessee has accepted the nexus of expenses with the investment? 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 6. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a public limited company and Govt of India Public Sector Enterprises under Ministry of Commerce, which is engaged in import and export of va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed together and decided accordingly. 10. The ld AO noted that the assessee has shown investment of Rs. 2,729,09 million and has not furnished any calculation of disallowances u/s 14A of the Act but has merely made ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs in the computation of income. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the disallowances should not be made according to the Rule 8D of the Act. The assessee submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure by way of interest or other expenditure which can be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. However, out of abandoned caution it has made disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs. The ld AO rejected the contentions of the assessee and has made a disallowances of Rs. 10,86,07,784/- after reducing the total disallowance by Rs. 2 lakhs. 11. On appeal before the ld CIT(A) assessee says that no exempt income earned during the year and also raised several other contentions. Vide para No. 9 the ld CIT(A) noted that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Vs. ITO has held that when there is no exempt income there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14 A of the act and deleted the disallowances. However, with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing officer is dismissed. 15. Now we come to appeal of the assessee. Ground number 1 of the appeal is general in nature, no arguments were advanced, and therefore, we dismiss this ground. 16. Ground number 5 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to the disallowance sustained of Rs. 557,500 incurred by the assessee on corporate social responsibility claimed as a business expenditure eligible u/s 37 (1) of the income tax act. The ground number 6 is without prejudice to ground number five wherein it is submitted that the deduction if any eligible u/s 80 G of the act may be allowed on the payment of Rs. 557,500 incurred on corporate social responsibility. The fact shows that assessee has donated Rs. 557,500 to 3 organizations. This was claimed as a corporate social responsibility expenditure and assessee's claim is that it is allowable u/s 37 (1) of the act. The learned assessing officer disallowed it. On appeal before the learned CIT - A he held that the donation has been claimed under the head corporate social responsibility expenditure, which has been identified in the tax audit report. It has been claimed by the assessee as a deductible expenditure and has not added to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellate authority confirmed the sense tax demand to the tune of Rs. 720,081 and allowed the refund of Rs. 223,019. The claim of the assessee is seized the sense tax order along with refund was received by the appellant after the disposal of the appeal, finally confirming part of the demand out of Rs. 943,100 the same was accounted for in the books of accounts in respect of previous year relevant to assessment year 2000 - 11. The refund amount of Rs. 223,019 was also accounted for as income credited under the head miscellaneous receipt in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2010 - 11, which has been brought to tax by the learned assessing officer. Thus, the claim of the assessee is that the demand towards sense tax was finally settled on refund of balance amount of Rs. 223,019 was finally received in April 2009, the amount of additional sense tax has been rightly claimed as allowable deduction sees the liability is finally crystallized in the year Under reference. 19. The learned authorised representative reiterated the submission made before the learned lower authorities and the learned departmental representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 20.....