CRESCENT TRADING P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 240/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5542 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MITESH SHAH A R S; FARROK IRANI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.MANJUNATHA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 240 /MUM /201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 1 2 - 1 3 ) M/S. CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. MANDHANA MANOR, 45, WING - C, MOGUL LANE, MATUNGA ROAD (WEST) , MUMBAI 400 0 16 . / VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 3(3 ) , MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN NO. AABCC6898A ( / APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : S /S HRI FARROK IRANI & MITESH SHAH, A.R S / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI . RAJAT MITTAL , D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 04 . 07 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 . 07 .201 8 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 51 , MUMBAI, DATED 22.11.2016 , WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 25.03.2015 FOR A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 . THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HA S RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - THE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER : 1.A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,26,168/ - MADE BY THE M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 2 AO TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF DISALLOWING CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED RELATING TO EXEMPT INCOME INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D MECHANICALLY . B) THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO REASON AND BASISI IN REACHING TO DI S SATISFACTION WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. C) IN REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION AND CONFIRMING SUCH AD DITION TO LD. CIT(A) OMITTED TO CONSIDER RELEVANT FACTORS, CONSIDERATIONS, PRINCIPLES AND EVIDENCES WHILE HE WAS OVERWHELMED, INFLUENCED AND PREJUDICED BY IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION AND FACTORS. D) IN ANY CASE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.R.8D CANNOT EXCEED T HE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ON 10.09.2012, DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 3,65,88,699 / - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS IN RECEIPT OF EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 4,56,909/ - HAD DISALLOWED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,500/ - UNDER SEC. 14A OF THE ACT. THE A.O NOT PERSUADED TO SU BSCRIB E TO THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT THE SAME AS PER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 34,27,668/ - , AS UNDER : SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II) OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. RS. 29,42,617 / - 2. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(III) OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. RS. 4,85,050/ - TOTAL RS. 34,27,668/ - AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,500/ - THAT WAS SUO MOTTO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A, THE A.O MADE A FURTHER M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 3 DISALLOWANCE /ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 34,26,168/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE C IT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE SAME AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL , OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, AS ALSO THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IT IS GATHERED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED EXEMPT INCOME IN NATURE OF DIVIDEND OF RS. 4,56,909/ - , IT IS FURTHER GATHERED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,66,71,234/ - ON LOAN TAKEN BY IT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES, ETC TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12,88,95,081/ - . THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT WERE CLEARLY APPL ICABLE. INFACT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,500/ - U/S 14A WHICH ALSO GOES TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF ACCEPTED APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT AS TO HOW THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WORKED OUT BY THE AO IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A, READ WITH RULE 8D OF T HE I.T. RULES, HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND UPHELD BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (328 ITR 81) , WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE COURT THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D CAN BE MADE IN THE CASES INVOLVING EXEMPTED INCO ME, FROM A. Y . 2008 - 09 ONWARDS. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI, IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENTS (P) LTD. (2009) 117 ITD 169 , WHEREIN APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D HAS BEEN UPHELD FOR WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14 A. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2014 DATED 11/2/2014 , HAS CLARIFIED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS TO BE MADE, EVEN IF NO EXEMPTED INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION OVER HER E THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES, ETC., TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12,88,95,081/ - AND EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME FROM WHICH IS EXEMPTED FROM TAX, FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 3,66,71,234/ - TOWARDS INTEREST, IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ON LOANS TAKEN BY IT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS AND NO INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN SHARES, ETC., HOWEVER, IT FAILED TO MAKE ANY DIRECT CO - RELATION IN THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SHARES AND S URPLUS FUNDS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THEIR OWN FUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3.66 CRORES DURING THE YEAR. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO INTEREST - BEARING FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN SHARES, ETC. SIMILARLY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO EXPENDITURE AS SUCH WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME, BECAUSE EVEN FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN SHARES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO C ARRY OUT DUE DILIGENCE AND HAS TO MAINTAIN BARE MINIMUM MAN POWER, TO LOOK AFTER THE FLUCTUATIONS IN THE VALUE OF SHARES, ETC. ACCORDINGLY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 4 PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 34,26,168/ - IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O IN A MECHANICAL MANNER UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8 D. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT SELF OWNED FUNDS TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE EXE MPT DIVIDEND INCOME YIELDING SHARES , THUS NO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) WAS CALLED FOR IN ITS HANDS. THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION TOOK US THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) . ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) , IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R TH AT AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 6,51,24,982/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SHARES AS ON 31.03.2012, THE ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS. 77,37,36,241/ - VIZ. (I) SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS : RS. 5,37,36,241/ - ; AND (II) INTEREST FREE LOAN : RS. 72,00,00,000/ - . THE LD. A.R TAKING US THROUG H THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) , SUBMITTED THAT AS THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING SHARES OF RS. 6,51,24,982/ - WORKED OUT TO 8.42% OF THE TOTAL INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS. 77,37,36,241/ - AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSE E, THUS NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST EX PENDITURE WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. THE LD. A . R IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY : (I) CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LIMITED (2009) 3 13 ITR 340 (BOM) (II) CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (BOM) IT WAS FURTHER AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 5 AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION THE LD. A.R RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2013 - 14 VIZ. M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 995/MUM/2018, DATED : 08.05.2018) (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) . THE LD. A.R TAKING SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (DEL) THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A WAS RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND T HAT THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE INVESTMENTS IN THE EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING SHARES WERE MADE OUT OF THE SURPLUS FUNDS AND NO PART OF THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE CHANNELIZED FOR THE SAME, THUS NO DISALLOWANCE OF ANY PART OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS CALLED FOR UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II), HOWEVER DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , IT EMERGES THAT THE LATTER OBSERV ED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO E STABLISH A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT S MADE IN THE SHARES AND THE INTEREST FREE SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT, THUS FOR THE SAID REASON ITS CLAIM THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE DID NOT MERIT ACC EPTANCE. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A). WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN TH E EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME YIELDING SHARES, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II) IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITUR E COULD HAVE BEEN VALIDLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 6 JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (BOM). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD IN T HE SAID CASE HAD OBSERVED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT TO EXPLAIN THE EXE MPT INCOME YIELDING INVESTMENTS, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II) CO ULD VALIDLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING SHARES, THUS NO DISALLOWANCE OF ANY PART OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS CALLED FO R IN ITS HANDS UNDER SEC. 14A R.W RULE 8D(2)(II). WE THUS, IN TERMS OF OUR FORESAID OBSERVATIONS DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 29,42,617/ - MADE BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II). 8 . WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER SEC. 14 A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(III) OF RS. 4,85,050/ - . WE ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. WE FIND THAT OUR AFORESAID VIEW STANDS FORTIFIED BY THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 VIZ. M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD . VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 995/MUM/2018, DATED 08.05.2018), HAD HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME, OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND GONE THROUGH T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,82,371/ - ON SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT AND CLAIM THE SAME AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 37 8 ITR 33 (DELHI) THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED (SUPRA), READS AS UNDER : 23 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS ENUMERATED HEREINBEFORE THE COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION FRAMED BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPRESSION DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME IN SECTION 14A OF THE ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 7 INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISAL LOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID INCOME, IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 1,82,371/ - . THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9 . WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSE S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14. WE THUS, FINDING NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFEREN T VIEW, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A TO THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 4,56,909/ - . THE A.O IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A TO AN AMOU NT OF RS. 4,56,909/ - . 10 . THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 . 07 .201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) (RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 24 . 07 .201 8 . . ./ PS. ROHIT KUMAR M/S CRESENT TRADING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 ( 3 ) A.Y. 201 2 - 1 3 ITA NO. 240 /MUM/201 7 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI