2022 (6) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....009 u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act wherein the total income was assessed at Rs.35,48,17,160/- as against the returned income of Rs.30,42,18,189/-. This assessment order was rectified vide order dated 26.03.2010, passed u/s 154 of Income Tax Act, whereby the assessee's income was amended to Rs.32,45,73,124/-. One of the additions made in the aforesaid assessment order dated 17.11.2019, as rectified by aforesaid order dated 26.03.2010, passed u/s 154 of Income Tax Act; was an addition of Rs.8,86,275/- made u/s 14A of Income Tax Act. This addition was partly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 11.11.2013. The matter travelled to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT" for short). Vide consolidated order dated 18.08.2016 in the assessee's ow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for AY 2007-08 & 2010-11 dated 18.08.2016 in case of Appellant Round 1 6 Order of CIT(A) u s 250(6) for AY 2007-08 dated 11.11 .2013 -Round 1 7 Copy of Form 35 along with grounds of appeal filed by theAppellant - Round 8 Assessment Order u/s 154/143(3) passed by Ld. A.O. dated 26.03.2010 for AY: '"OS Round 1 9 Assessment Order u/s 143(3) passed by Ld. A.O. dated 17.11.2009 for AY '00? wS Round 1 10 Copy of Income Tax Return for AY 2007-08 11 Copy of Audited Financials of the Appellant for the year ended 31.03.2010 12 Working of Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules 13 Detailed breakup of Investment held by Appellant 14 Order of Ld. AO for AY 2011-12 in c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present case; despite, as contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Rule-8D being not applicable for Assessment Year 2007-08. The Ld. Counsel for assessee drew our attention to page 177 of the Paper Book, wherein the quantum of disallowance u/s 14A of IT Act, computed in accordance with method prescribed under Rule 8D of IT Rules, was quantified at Rs.1,244/- (B.1) The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative ("Ld. SR-DR" for short), supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. Sr. DR could not justify how the ad hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer @ 20% of exempt income, was a reasonable disallowance in the facts and circumstances of the case. (B.2) We have heard both sides. We hav....