2025 (9) TMI 1036

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Disallowance under section 14A in accordance with Rule 8D is bad in law 1.1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs 15,50,607/- ignoring the rule of consistency On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A/J CIT(A) erred in hot following the appellate order of CIT(A) passed for the AY 2012-13 in appellant's own case wherein the suo motu disallowance under section 14A made by the Appellant was accepted. Further, learned A/J CIT(A) also erred in ignoring Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT decision in case of the holding company and as well as the other group companies wherein the method of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Assessing made disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act for a sum of Rs. 33,92,916/- and u/s. 80G for a sum of Rs. 20,60,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the Revenue in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2012-13 has accepted assessee's suo moto disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has not taken into account the decision of the Tribunal in case of the holding company of the assessee as well as other group companies wherein the method of suo moto disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act which is identical in the case of the assessee and the same was accep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stment and assessee claimed that it has already disallowed proportionate personnel and admin cost at Rs. 64,59,529/- in the return of income and also the disclosure to that effect was given in the tax audit report. Thus, the CIT(A) in para 7.6, has categorically mentioned that the sum of Rs. 64,529/- was arose by the assessee stating that 5% of the time devoted by the employee is consider for proportionate disallowance of personnel admin cost. This claim of the assessee do not have any notional value. Therefore, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A). As regard no.1.2 related to satisfaction the Ld. DR submitted that the AO in para 4.3 has categorically elaborated the reasons on which Rule 8D and sect....