SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Suffice to say, the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 administrative expenditure of Rs.24,52,677/- in relation to it’s exempt income thereby invoking section 14A of the Act. Learned counsel’s first and foremost vehement argument is that the Assessing Officer herein had not recorded any satisfaction having regard the SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. assessee’s books of account; and, therefore, the impugned disallowance ought to be deleted in very terms. A perusal of the case file indicates that the learned assessing authority had indeed recorded it’s satisfaction thereby rejecting the assessee’s corresponding explanation as not to have any expenditure. That being the case, I see no merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost arguments.

The assessee’s second argument is that it’s case is covered in light of the tribunal’s earlier order(s) having decided the issue against the department.

It is made clear that the learned lower authorities herein have made indirect administrative expenditure disallowance going by the specified formula which has been held as mandatory in nature; more particularly, in light of Maxopp Investment Vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). The assessee’s further contention that it had not incurred any expenditure has already been declined in the assessing authority corresponding detailed discussion in para 3.6 of the assessment order. I accordingly reject the assessee’s second instant substantive ground as well in very terms.

Learned counsel’s third vehement contention is that there is a mistake in the Assessing Officer’s computation of impugned disallowance which is restored back for afresh appropriate

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.