Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 1976/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Prakash K. Prakash, Central Circle-13, B-1, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi. 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm6572A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Ms Suman Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19Th January, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Part Relief Granted By The Cit(A) On The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of It Rules, 1962. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company
For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 14A
…hows that the actual dividend income received by the assessee during the year is only Rs.2,19,536/- The coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 694 (Del) and in the case of CIT vs. Holcim (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 272 CTR 282 (Del) are consistently taking the view that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual dividend income received by the assessee which is claimed as exempt. Since the 3 assessee in the instant case has received only an amount of Rs.2,19,536…
