DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(1), HYDERABAD vs. COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

The Revenue’s identical sole substantive grievance in both these appeals seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action making 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance(s) of Rs.15,80,59,828 and Rs.16,00,01,852; assessment year- wise respectively. Its case is that CIT(A) orders under challenge have erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to consider only the dividend yielding investments for the purpose of computing the impugned disallowance as under :

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance as this issue of restricting 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance only to the extent of exempt income yielding investment is no more res integra in light of REI 7 & 765/Hyd/2020 Agro Limited Vs. DCIT GA No.3581 of 2013 ITAT No.220/Kol/2013 dt.9.4.2014 (Cal.) and (2015) 61 taxman.com 71 (Del) ACB India Limited Vs. ACIT rejecting the Revenue’s identical contention seeking 14A r.w. Rule 8D that the same is to be computed on the entire investments We hold in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the impugned disallowance under challenge. The Revenue fails in its identical sole substantive ground. No other ground has been pressed before us.

These Revenue’s twin appeals are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.