TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessee : Dr. K. Shivraram, AR ORDER PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee are for the assessment year 2012-13, 2013-14, challenging the impugned common order of even date 31st October 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai, and appeals by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, challenging common order of even date 31st October 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai. As the issue involved in the captioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and having common issue, the same are therefore being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. Fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,61,612/- during the year under consideration. The assessee had made suo moto disallowance of Rs 55,91,168/- u/s 14A of the Act in the return of income. We find that this disallowance was worked out by the assessee by considering the salaries of Mr Nimesh Kampani, Mr Manish Sheth and Mr Rajesh Shah ( i.e one month salary cost) and list of various administrative expenses attributable to investment activity at 8.33% thereon. The details of the said workings were provided by the assessee before the ld AO. The ld AO completely ignored the workings of the assessee and did not record any objective satisfaction with cogent reasons in terms of Rule 8D(1) of the Rules as to how the computation made by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 7.10.2015 raising following question for our consideration:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs, 1,79,85,122/- to Rs. 7,64,949/- as offered by the assessee, without appreciating that when the assessee itself admitted that the disallowance had to be made with - regard to expenditure for earning of income which was exempt, the disallowance is not to be worked out on adhoc basis by estimating the same, but as per method prescribed in the Rule 8D(2)?" assessee 2. The issue pertains to disallowance to be made under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction. Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench as per above para we are incline to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. Further, we noticed that the Revenue raised the ground of appeal No. 2 objecting to the decision of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of only those investments which yielded the exempt income. The Revenue contention was that provision of section 14A r.w.r. 8D are applicable irrespective of earning exempt income. This proposition that Rule 8D applicable even when there is no exempt income is against the judicial precedent and all the Courts have held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clined to disallow the lease rentals, then the assessee is to be allowed depreciation and finance charges with respect to the leased vehicles. The ld. AO ignoring the plea of the assessee proceeded to disallow the entire lease rentals claimed as deduction on the ground that the assessee itself had capitalized the value of leased vehicles as fixed assets in its books. However, the ld. AO did not accept the alternate claim of the assessee for granting depreciation and finance charges on leased assets. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us." 9. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Co-ordinate Bench has already considered this issue and decided the issue....