MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 971/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 August 2021AY 2013-145 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the disallowance under Section 14A. It followed the Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a holding company, made investments in subsidiary companies yielding exempt income. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of expenditure under Section 14A, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is applicable to a holding company for investments made out of business necessity, and whether expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Hearing: 25/08/2021Pronounced: 27/08/2021

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mandava Holdings Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 16(2), PAN – AAFCM 4964M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 25/08/2021 Date of pronouncement: 27/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 4, Hyderabad’s order dated 09/03/2018 for AY 2013-14 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”, on the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal of the Appellant is perverse, illegal and unsustainable on facts and in law.

:- 2 -: M/s Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance under section 14A of the Act of Rs.1,40,75,043. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a holding company and hence the provisions of section 14A of the Act cannot be applied as the investment made by the Appellant is out of business necessity.

3.

Without prejudice to above, and on n the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there is no finding on part of the Assessing Officer that the Appellant had incurred expenditure to earn the exempted income, and therefore no disallowance could be made under section 14A of the Act. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appeal.”

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 29/09/2013 admitting a loss of Rs. 5,71,78,185/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee, against which, the AR of the assessee furnished the information called for.

2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made investments to the tune of Rs. 7,69,273.70 as on 31/03/2013. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 14A shall not be applied as the assessee company had made investment in subsidiary companies, which yield exempt

:- 3 -: M/s Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. income. The AO noted that the assessee has incurred interest expenditure. Relying on the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 in F.No. 225/182/2013-ITA-II, dated 11/02/2014, the AO computed the disallowance of Rs. 1,40,75,042/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(20(ii) of the Act.

3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 449 (SC).

4.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

5.

Before us, the ld. AR reiterated submissions made before the lower authorities and relied on the case law filed in paper book page Nos. 1 to 192, which is placed on record.

6.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., Vs. CIT [2018] 402 ITR 640.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is observed that the :- 4 -: M/s Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.

assessee has invested in the subsidiary companies which yielded exempt income. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra) and respectfully following the above judgment, we observe that since the assessee has invested in subsidiary companies, which yielded exempt income, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,40,75,043/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Act and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee on this count.

8. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (L. P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 27th August, 2021. kv Copy to : 1 M/s Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd., C/o S/Shri AV Raghuram, P. Vinod & M. Neelima Devi, Advocates, 610 Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 001. 2 ACIT, Circle – 16(2), IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 3 CIT(A) – 4, Hyderabad. Pr. CIT - 4, Hyderabad 4 ITAT, DR, Hyderabad. 5 6 Guard File.

:- 5 -: M/s Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.

S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 2 Draft placed before author Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement 7 File sent to Bench Clerk 8 Date on which the file goes to Head Clerk 9 Date on which file goes to A.R. 10 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →