ITO, WARD-7(2)/KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RAGHU VINNCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 emanated from Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata’s order 09.01.2017 in cases No.10122/CIT(A)-18/16-17/ITO, Wd-7(2) Kol, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Revenue’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal is that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in restricting the Assessing Officer’s action making Section 14A r.w Rule 8D disallowance of ₹65,61,800/- to the extent the amount of actual exempt dividend income of ₹4,04,000/-. There is no dispute on facts that the assessee has derived the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 ITO Wd-7(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Raghu Vinncom Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 exempt income from dividends. The question for us is that only that of quantification of the impugned disallowance. The CIT(A)’s discussion in para 4.3 has for considered various judicial precedents in partly accepting assessee grievance to the extent of its exempt income (supra) Hon'ble Delhi high court’s judgment in (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) Joint. Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT as well as hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high court’s decision in DCIT vs Empering Packaging Pvt. Ltd ITA 415/2015 dated 12.06.2016 decide the very issue in assessee’s favour. The Revenue fails to pin-point any distinction on facts or law therein. We thus reject its sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal.