TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that even if a Company advances loans to its Member(s)/Share-holder(s)/Director(s) holding more than 10% of shares therein, and where admittedly such lending is not in the usual course of its business, even then, the amounts so advanced, would not be covered under the definition of "dividends" as stated in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is clearly contrary to the unambiguous language of the provision? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh that even though the amounts so re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;ble ITAT has erred in not upholding disallowance of Rs. 11,82,978/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act on the ground that disallowance made cannot exceed exempt income without appreciating the fact that applicability of Section 14A or Rule 8D does not depend on earning of income as held by Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajender Prasad Moody (1978), 115 ITR 519? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not upholding disallowance of Rs. 11,82,978/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act on the ground that disallowance made cannot exceed exempt income without appreciating the fact that there is no such restriction in Section 14A or in rule 8D and further clarified by CBDT Circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rincipal of apportionment regardless of exempt income laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Walfori Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd., 326 ITR 1 (SC) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 91 Taxman.com 154 (SC)? (xi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,82,978/- u/s 14A determined by the AO under rule 8D r.w.s. 14A to apportion interest expenditure incurred to invest in shares and equity instrument in view of the fact that no separate accounts are maintained by the assessee in relation to investments whose income is exempt from tax, and has large borrowed funds ignoring Apex Court decision in 91 Taxman.com 154 (SC)....