Kalyani Infotech Solutions Ltd., Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1506/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1041 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Section: 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 KALYANI INFOTECH SOLUTIONS LTD., S.NO.49, INDUSTRY HOUSE, MUNDHWA, PUNE 411036 PAN :AABCR4139B . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CIRCLE - 6, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 01-04-2016 OF THE CIT(A)-7, PUNE RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IT AND ITES A ND SALE AND INSTALLATION OF NETWORKING AND SECURITY SYSTEM. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25-09-2012 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS.2,65,979/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, HAS CLAIMED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.4,44,237/- AS EXEMPT. HOWEVER, NO EXPENSES HAS BEEN CLAIMED AGAINST THE SAID EXEMPTED INCO ME. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE SAME AND ASKED HIM TO / DATE OF HEARING :07.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:09.09.2016 2 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8 D OF THE I.T. ACT AND I.T. RULE SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PROVISION HAS A LREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSES SEE HAS SUOMOTU DISALLOWED RS.85,823/- U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO READS AS UNDER : YOUR HONOUR HAS ASKED OUR COMPANY TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO W HY THE ADDITION OF RS.13,27,400/- U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D AS PER OUR COMPANYS WORKING. IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT YOUR H ONOUR HAS CONSIDERED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY OUR COMPANY IN SHARE S OF KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. (A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN MAURI TIUS) OF RS.25,33,44,800/- FOR THE PURPOSES OF WORKING AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AS PER RULE 8D. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND (III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, THE AVERAGE OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT MEANS AVERAGE OF VALUE OF INVESTMENTS, I NCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL IN COME, AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AN D THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS SHARES IN KALYANI MAURITIUS PV T. LTD. ARE TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE WORKING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTME NTS AS THE DIVIDEND THEREON IS NOT EXEMPT. 4. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFO RE HIM THE AO RECOMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D AT RS.13,27,400/-. AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS.85,823/- ALRE ADY DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,41 ,577/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE AC TION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,41,577/-. IT WAS ARG UED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE AT RS.25,33,44,800/- IN KALYANI M AURITIUS PVT. LTD. SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS DIVIDEND FROM THIS INVESTMEN T IS NOT EXEMPT. THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS. HOWEV ER, THE 3 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE & LAW APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEN D OF RS.4,44,237/-. THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED RS.85,823/- U/S.14 A. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.25 ,33,44,800/- IN KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. AND DIVIDED FROM THIS INV ESTMENT IS NOT EXEMPT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT DETAILS OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED AND AO INVOKED RULE 8D. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT INVESTMENT IN KALYANI MAURITIUS P VT. LTD. SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE COMPUTATION OF RULE 8D AS THE D IVIDEND IS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CIT VS. SU ZLON ENERGY LTD. (2013) 354 ITR 0630 (GUJ.), ITO VS. STRIDES ARCOLAB L TD. (2012) 138 ITD 323 (MUMBAI), ACIT VS. BHARAT HOTELS (2014) 42 CCD 00 74 (DELHI), AND M/S. EVEREST CANTO CYLINDER LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.55 0/MUM/2014. DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS CONCEIVABLE IN RESPECT OF INVEST MENT MADE IN THE SHARES OF DOMESTIC COMPANIES AND NOT FOREIGN COMPAN IES WHERE DIVIDEND IS TAXABLE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN RULE 8D AND THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN COMPANY INCORPORATED OU TSIDE INDIA AND DIVIDEND THEREFROM IS TAXABLE IN INDIA SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF RULE 8D. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1.2 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT SHOULD FURNISH DETAILS OF TAXABLE DIVIDE ND IF ANY RECEIVED AND DETAILS OF EXEMPT DIVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE APPEL LANT TO THE AO IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1.2 . OSTENSIBLY, APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS OF DIVIDE NDS RECEIVED AND AO BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH EXPENSES CLAIM THE EXEMPT D IVIDEND INCOME INVOKE RULE 8D. THEREFORE, INVOCATION OF RULE 8D I S UPHELD AND GROUND NO.1.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE TAKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER : ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLO WANCE U / S . 14A R. W. RULE 8D AT RS. 13 , 27 , 400/ - AS AGAINST RS. 85 , 823 / - AS WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AS PER REGULAR PROVISIONS AS WELL AS BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 1.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT SPECIFICALLY DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12,41 , 577 / - MADE BY THE LD. A.O. U / S. 14A OVER AND ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 85, 823 / - WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IN KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. WAS TO BE EXCL UDED WHILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U / S. 14A R. W .R 8D SINCE THE DIFFERENCE 4 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND WORKED OUT BY THE LD. A.O. WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF TH E INCLUSION BY THE LD A.O. OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. WHOSE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS TAXABLE IN INDIA . 1 . 3 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE MADE B Y THE LD A . O. U / S. 14A ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FUR NISH THE DETAILS OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID ISSUE WAS TOTALLY IRRELEVAN T FOR DECIDING THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE U / S . 14A R.W.R. 8D AND HENCE , THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY HIM ON THE SAID GROUND IS NOT JUSTIFIED A T ALL AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 2. THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALT ER, AMEND , MODIFY AND/OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND S OF APPEAL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVES TED AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,33,44,800/- IN KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. W HICH IS BASED IN MAURITIUS. HE SUBMITTED THAT DIVIDEND INCOME OF SU CH FOREIGN COMPANY IS TAXABLE. REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 115-O HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SECTION TALKS OF A DOMESTIC CO MPANY. REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(A) HE SUBMITTED T HAT DOMESTIC COMPANY HAS BEEN DEFINED AS AN INDIAN COMPANY OR ANY OTHER COMPANY WHICH IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THIS ACT HAS MADE THE PRESCRIBED ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DECLA RATION AND PAYMENT WITHIN INDIA ALL THE DIVIDENDS PAYABLE OUT OF SUCH INCOME. THUS A BARE PERUSAL OF THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC COMPANY INDICATES THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO INDIAN COMPANY AND IT IS NOT APPLI ED TO A FOREIGN COMPANY. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS UNCALLED FO R. IN ANY CASE THE DIVIDEND INCOME FROM THE FOREIGN COMPANY IS TAXABLE. REFERRING TO PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE IN VESTMENT OF RS.25,73,17,371/- AS PER SCHEDULE 7. REFERRING TO SCHEDULE 7, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT INCLUDES AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,23,4 4,800/- 5 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 BEING 37,85,000 SHARES OF EURO ONE EACH IN KALYANI MAUR ITIUS PVT. LTD., A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY SET UP IN THE REPUBLIC OF MA URITIUS. REFERRING TO PAGE 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATT ENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D AS PER THE COMPANY VIS--VIS AS PER THE AO. REFERRING TO T HE SAME HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE WORKING OF INVES TMENT HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,23,44,800/- AS INVESTMENT IN SHAR ES OF KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY T HE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO PAGE 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE D REW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE TH E CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUZLON ENERGY LTD. REPORTED IN 354 ITR 630 AN D THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F ITO VS. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD. REPORTED IN 138 ITD 323 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT IN FOREIGN COMPANY OF RS.25,23,44,800/- SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D. 8. REFERRING TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, A COPY OF W HICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 2 TO 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID COMPUTATION HAS CLAIMED EXEMPT DIVIDE ND OF RS.4,44,237/- AND HAS ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.85,823/ - U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D. REFERRING TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT AND SCHEDULES THERETO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRE W THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.4,44,2 37/- ONLY WHICH IS FROM THE MUTUAL FUNDS. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO DIVIDEND HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE MAURITIUS COMPANY. RE FERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE DREW THE 6 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER AND SUB MITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1.2 TAKEN BEFOR E HIM IN THE FIRST PARA HAS HOWEVER DEVIATED FROM THE SAME IN THE SUBSEQUENT PARA AND THEREBY DISMISSED THE GROUND OF A PPEAL NO.1.1. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS SELF CONTRADICTORY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS HELD TH AT INVESTMENT MADE IN THE COMPANY INCORPORATED OUTSIDE I NDIA THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF WHICH IS TAXABLE IN INDIA SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF RULE 8D. HOWEVER, IN THE SUBS EQUENT PARAS HE HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.12,41,577/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID INVESTMENT. THIS IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) HIMSELF. HE ACCORDIN GLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOU S DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME. I FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.4,44,237/- AND HAS SUOMOTU DISALLOWED A N AMOUNT OF RS.85,823/- U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D. THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D HAS EXCLUD ED THE AMOUNT OF RS.25,33,44,800/- INVESTED BY IT IN THE SHARES O F KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN MAURITIUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AS PER RU LE 8D. I FIND THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D HAS CONSIDERED THE ABOVE INVESTMENT OF RS.25,33,44,800/- FO R THE 7 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO DIVIDEND HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ABOVE MAURITIUS COMPANY AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. IT IS ALS O AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF SUCH FOREIGN COM PANY IS TAXABLE IN INDIA. I FIND IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE HOLDING AT THE FIRST PARA OF 5.3 THAT AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN A CO MPANY INCORPORATED OUTSIDE INDIA THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF WHICH IS TAXABLE IN INDIA SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF RULE8D, HOWEVER, HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.12,41,577/- ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNIS H DETAILS OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED AND AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES FOR THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. 11. I FIND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SELF CONTRADICTORY. WH ILE IN ONE PART OF THE ORDER HE HOLDS THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS CA LLED FOR UNDER RULE 8D SINCE THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE COMPANY IS INCORPORATED OUTSIDE INDIA AND DIVIDEND THERE FROM IS TAXA BLE IN INDIA, HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME HE HOLDS THAT THE COMP UTATION DONE BY THE AO IS CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFU LLY DEMONSTRATED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT IT HAS RECEIVED ONL Y AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,44,237/- AS DIVIDEND FROM MUTUAL FUNDS AND HAS CALCU LATED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D ON RS.85,823/-. A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CALCULATION MADE BY THE AO AND CALCULATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ONLY D IFFERENCE IS REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF INVESTMENT OF RS.24,33,44,85 0/- IN THE SHARES OF KALYANI MAURITIUS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORP ORATED OUTSIDE INDIA AND FROM WHICH NO DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED. 8 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 12. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . SUZLON ENERGY LTD. HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT INVESTMENT MADE IN FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH DIVIDEND INCOME FROM SUCH SUBSIDIARIES WAS TAXABLE IN INDIA A ND THEREFORE SECTION 14A WOULD HAVE NO APPLICABILITY. THE MUMB AI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS CONCEIVABLE IN RESPEC T OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARES OF DOMESTIC COMPANY AND NOT FOREIGN COMPANIES. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BHARAT HOTELS REPORTED IN 42 CCH 74 AND THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. EVEREST CANTO CYLINDERS LTD. VS. ACIT VIDE ITA NO.550/MUM/2014. SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E INVESTMENTS IN A FOREIGN COMPANY, THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF WHIC H IS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND THE CIT(A) IN THE FIRST PARA OF ITS ORDE R HAS ALSO UPHELD THE SAME VIEW HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN COMPANY INCORPORATED OUTSIDE INDIA, THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF WHICH IS T AXABLE IN INDIA SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF DISALLOWAN CE UNDER RULE 8D AND THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS PART OF THE ORDER AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FULL DETA ILS OF DIVIDEND INCOME AS WELL AS THE INVESTMENT IN FOREIGN COMPAN Y, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEING SELF CONTRADICTORY IS SET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09-09-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED :09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. 9 ITA NO.1506/PN/2016 '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // $ % // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - 7, PUNE 4. THE CIT-7, PUNE 5. $ %%* , * , SMC BENCH / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.