TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in confirming the action of the A.O. making disallowance u/s 14A. 2.1. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) has noted that the assessee earned a dividend income of Rs.14,27,836/- and claimed the same as exempt from income tax. The assessee has paid interest of Rs.24,566/- on overdraft and interest of Rs.17,46,699/- to others. The A.O. made disallowance of Rs.2,47,464/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the computation made by the A.O. and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 2.2. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that the investment during the year were from the surplus available and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 505 (Bom) it is held that the presumption laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom) with regard to investment in tax-free securities coming out of the assessee's own funds in case they are in excess of the investments made in securities (notwithstanding the fact that the assessee concerned may also have taken some funds on interest) applies, when applying section 14A of the Act. It is reiterated again in HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). 2.6. In view of the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue is set aside and the same is restored to the file of the A.O. to make an order keeping in mind the principles delineated here-in-above after giving a reasonable opportunity of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upposedly written by them in Gujarati and filed english translation of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was nothing to suggest that the letter was written by the said party. Also there is no evidence to prove that the said party existed at all. Further none of the transaction has taken place through banking channels and all three have written that they have acted as broker between the appellant and various farmers; hence, no financial transaction has taken place with both parties. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.29,97,477/-. 3.2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee relies on the order of the ITAT 'F' Bench Mumbai in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 6642/Mum/2013). 3.3. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25,03,905/- respectively. The A.O. also noted from the details of share holding that Mr. U.B. Thakkar held 10,000 shares of the face value of Rs.10,00,000/- and Ms. R.U. Thakkar held 3000 shares of face value of Rs.3,00,000/-. As per provisions of section 270(1)(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 a director has to acquire shares of the value of at least Rs.5,000/- within a period shorter than six months of his date of appointment as director in the company. Being a person holding shares of the assessee-company, the director becomes entitled to dividend which again is the appropriation of the profits. The A.O. therefore relied on the decision in Loyal Motors Service Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 14 ITR 647 (Bom.) and disallowed u/s 36(1) (ii) the commission o....