Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : “D” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XI, New Delhi dated 30.10.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds :-
1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the additional disallowance made u/s 14A to Rs. 1,08,59,701/- and allowing relief of Rs. 5,18,61,299/- to the assessee without appreciating the provision of Rule 8D ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance computed under Rule 8D(2)(ii)
ITO vs. M/s. Kama Holdings Ltd. amounting to Rs. 6,06,19,000/- made by the AO and accepting the working of the assessee of disallowances at Rs. 87,58,151/- under Rule 8D(2)(i), ignoring the fact that the provision of Rule 8D does not make any such distinction?”
After hearing rival contentions we hold as follows : 3. Ground No. 1 and 2 are on the issue of quantum of disallowance u/s 14A. Ground No. 3, 4 and 5 are general in nature.
The first appellate authority at page 8 of his order held as follow:
“However, the appellant has objected the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules, since it has already been accepted by the AO that before 31st March, 2005, an amount of Rs. 875.04 lac has been utilised for investment and remaining loan was for business purposes. Since then no new investment in shares has been made by the appellant and various loans obtained by the appellant have been utilised for specific purpose of business working capital requirement. The appellant’s argument have force and it is undisputed that the AO had determined in AY 2006-07, the loan amount of Rs. 857.04 lac utilised for investment in share out of total borrowings of Rs. 4612.12 lac and same has been followed in AY 2007-08 as the quantum of investment in shares remained unchanged. The facts being the same during the year under consideration and the amount of disallowance has already been disallowed by the appellant under Rule 8D(2)(i) of IT Rules, there remains no justification for making further disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of IT Rules.
We find that the AO has passed orders on the directions of the Hon’be Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in order dated 2.12.2011. The AO has accepted in the earlier years orders that the loan amount of Rs. 857.04 lacs only was utilised for investment of shares out of the total borrowings of Rs. 4612.12 lacs . He did not find any fault with 2 20x5
ITO vs. M/s. Kama Holdings Ltd. the quantum of disallowance made by the assessee. The facts and circumstances being same during the impugned assessment year we find no infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority.
In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.