TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following substantive grounds of appeal:- "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) is legally justified in not upholding the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.29,15,045/- even when assessee is in receipt of exempt income and when section 14A of the Act stipulates mandatory computation of direct and indirect expenses relating to the income not forming part of total income under all the clauses of Rule 8D(2) of the Rule ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of Rs.8,81,44,000/- by the Assessing Officer as prior period expenses? " 3. Brief facts of the case are that, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 is squarely covered by Assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10, 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 and further submitted that the Appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed and the ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention to the orders of the Tribunal in Assessee's own cases. 8. We have heard the parties, perused the material available on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. In the present case, the assessee made suo-moto disallowance of Rs.9,05,9171- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules after taking into account only those investments which actually yielded exempt income in calculating amount of average investment. The Ld.AO made disallowance of Rs.38,20,962/- by invoking section 14A of the Act. The amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puted by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the appellant has substantiated in its submission that the amount of disallowance computed by it at Rs. 9,05,917/- was in line with the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2015 (4) TMI 224 as per which only those investments on which exempt income has been earned in the year under consideration can only be considered for computation of disallowance under Rule 8D. In view of the above, the AO is directed to delete disallowance of Rs. 29,15,045/-. Ground of appeal no. 4 is allowed. 10. It is found that the similar disallowances were made by the A.O. in Assessee's own case which have been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in following orders:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f consistency we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and find no justification to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) . Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 of the Department is dismissed. 13. Ground No. 2 is regarding deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,81,44,000/- as prior period expenses. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has committed grave error in deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. as prior period expenses and sought for interference by the Tribunal. 14. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the above issue is also covered in Assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No. 2211/Del/2013 vide order dated 19/11/2014 therefore, submitted that the ground raised by the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld as under:- ""7.2. Ground nos. 3 and 4 are on the issue of disallowance of prior period expenses. The assessee has incurred prior period expenses of Rs.16,61,43,508/-. It had prior period income of Rs.10,22,60,782/-. The net prior period amount of Rs.63,88,272/-, was already added by the assessee in the computation of income. Thus, the finding of the First Appellate Authority that there is a double addition of Rs.63,88,272/- is factually correct. 7.3. As far as the balance amount is concerned the assessee's contention is that the amount has crystallised during the year, as the assessee came to know about these expenses only in the F. Y. 2008-09. 7.4. The second limb of the argument of the assessee is that, whic....