IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRICHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A Nos.5635/Del/2018 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2015-16

UFO Moviez India Ltd., Valuable Techno Park, Plot No.53/1, Road No.7, Marol Midc, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra.	बनाम Vs.	DCIT Circle-27(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi.
PAN No.AABCV8900E
अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant		(cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent

बनाम

UFO Moviez India Ltd., Valuable Techno Park, Plot No.53/1, Road No.7, Marol Midc, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra.	बनाम Vs.	DCIT Circle-27(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi.
PAN No.AABCV8900E
अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant		(cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent

&

आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A Nos.5825/Del/2018 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2015-16

DCIT Circle-27(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi.	बनाम Vs.	UFO Moviez India Ltd., Valuable Techno Park, Plot No.53/1, Road No.7, Marol Midc, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra.
		PAN No.AABCV8900E
अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant		(cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent

बनाम

DCIT Circle-27(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi.	बनाम Vs.	UFO Moviez India Ltd., Valuable Techno Park, Plot No.53/1, Road No.7, Marol Midc, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra.
		PAN No.AABCV8900E
अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant		(cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent

Assessee by Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. &

Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 01.02.2024 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

These two appeals are filed by the Assessee and Revenue against the orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-9, New Delhi dated 27.06.2018 for the AY 2015-16.The assessee has raised revised grounds of appeal as under: -

1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding an additional disallowance of INR 1,84,372 under section 14A of the Act over and above the suo moto disallowance of INR 8,60,000 made by the Appellant.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the satisfaction recorded under section 14A(2) of the Act by the CIT(A) / AO was improper and otherwise bad in law and as such, no disallowance under section 14A was called for.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in disallowing .the expenditure to the extent of the exempt dividend income earned without appreciating the fact that expenditure incurred in towards earning exempt income was suo-moto disallowed by the Appellant and no further expenditure has been incurred in earning the aforesaid exempt income.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in not considering the basis adopted by the Appellant for computing suo-moto disallowance of INR 8,60,000 under section 14A of the Act and enhancing the addition to the extent of exempt income earned by the Appellant.”

2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the Assessing Officer did not record proper satisfaction for invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act before making disallowance under Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee made suo moto disallowance of Rs.8,60,000/- and has given explanation as to how the assessee has arrived at the suo moto disallowance but the AO did not give proper explanation for rejecting the suo moto disallowance. The Ld. Counsel submits that on identical circumstances the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2014-15 in ITA No.1730/Del/2018 dated 20.02.2024 deleted the disallowance made under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A accepting the contention of the assessee that there was no proper satisfaction recorded by the AO.

3. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document