TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the IT Act. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of tractors, agricultural equipments like harvesters, micro irrigation equipments and spare parts. It has also technology centre which is primarily involved into catering of information technology and engineering services to Deer Associates. It filed its return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 591,28,97,560/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 4. During ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion by observing as under :- "FINDINGS: 3.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission filed by the appellant. It is seen from the submission of the appellant that the appellant had made investment of Rs. 293.30 Crores in its 100% subsidiary i.e. JDFIPL and the investment was made out of its own funds available. The appellant claims that the alleged investment was made out of its reserves and surplus available during the year under consideration of Rs. 1,619.8 Crores and in support, copies of the financials have been submitted. Having gone through the above, it is imperative to say that the appellant company was having sufficient interest free own funds out of which the alleged investments were made. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e., dividend, was earned in relevant assessment year by assessee, section 14A could not be invoked. Thus, respectfully relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find no reason in sustaining the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962. Without prejudice to the above, in the instant case, the appellant has claimed that it had not earned any exempt income from the investments made, therefore, it is incumbent on the AO to bring on record as to how the provisions of section 14A attracts in the case of the appellant. The AO has not brought on record any fact or material to show that any expenditure has been incurred on the activity which has resulted into non taxable income. In the case of Maxopp Investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he submission of the appellant in light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant. The Ld. A.O. by applying Rule 8D, has worked out the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 1,48,77,912/- on the tax free investments made by the appellant in its subsidiary company- John Deere Financial India Pvt Ltd (JDFIPL) by way of equity share capital. Before me, the Ld. AR for the appellant has argued that during the year under consideration, there was no exempt income earned by the appellant and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. (supra), no disallowance u/s. 14A could be made. The Appellant has also submitted that the invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal filed by the revenue since during this year also the assessee has not earned any dividend income. 10. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that in the assessee's own case for asstt. year 2016-17 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.1184/PUN/2024 order dated 07-10-2024 has dismissed the Revenue's appeal in favour of the assessee by observing as under :- "10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not received any dividend income during the year and the statement made by the L....