TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 29/01/2016. Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance U/S.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act to Rs. 2,58,225/- as against Rs. 75,63,804/- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the late delivery charges of Rs. 1,65,067/- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of foreign commission amounting to Rs. 1,76,08,320/- without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en considered by the various higher authorities at appellate level also. Accordingly there is only Rs. 10112344/( as per role no 24 there is interest income of Rs. 44478891 whereas the Interest coest as per the P and L tile is Rs. 54591235) i.e. due to this interest disallowance will be less than 25% of the amount what we have given the working earlier. Further disallowance for the interest free advance to 100% foreign subsidiary will also be similar to this one i. e. less than 25% of what the working has been given. It is also pertinent to note that there was no bank limits available at the end of the year. The contention of the assesse is not found acceptable. Since the assessee's accounts does not give the correctness of claim of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessing Officer. 7. Now question is before us is whether disallowance of Rs. 2,58,225/- should be confirmed or not. It can be seen from the facts of the case that ld. A,.O. has made disallowance of Rs. 75,63,804/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. 8. On the other hand, Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that issue is covered by the decision given by his office in appellant own case for A.Y. 2012-13 vide Appellate Order No. CIT(A)-2/400/DCIT, Cir. 2(1)(1)/2014-15 dated 25/01/2016 wherein he has restricted the confirmed exempt income of the assesse. 9. In our considered opinion, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and same does not require any kind of interfer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleted by the appellate Authority." 14. But ld. A.O. did not agree with the contention of the assesse and made addition of Rs. 1,65,067/- . 15. Thereafter assesse preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who granted relief to the assesse. 16. Now revenue has come before us by way of second statutory appeal. 17. So far deletion of addition of late delivery charges are concerned, similar addition was deleted in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 by the Ld. CIT(A) and Co-ordinate Bench has dismissed the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 154/Ahd/2015 with following observation: "15. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that apportion of the sale considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record. It is noticed that the assesse company has been regularly exporting its products with the help of overseas dealers. It is undisputed fact that the commission were paid to such non-resident agents in respect of all the services rendered by them related to the export made by the assesse outside India. There was no permanent establishment/office of these agents or any infrastructure situated in India. These agents have carried out all their activities outside India and commission was paid for the activities carried out side India. Section 195 is applicable only if the payments made to non-residents are chargeable to tax. If the payment is not chargeable to tax under the act, the payer would not be liable to deduct tax at source under....