Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by the disallowance of administrative expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record proper satisfaction, and that there was a mistake in computation.
Held
The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed recorded satisfaction and rejected the assessee's argument regarding lack of expenditure. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim that its case was covered by previous orders.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A is justified when the AO has recorded satisfaction and whether there was a mistake in the computation of disallowance.
Sections Cited
143(3), 14A, 8D(2)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2021-22 SICPA India Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 308-312, Mercantile House, 15, K. Central Circle-6, G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCS6121L Assessee by: Sh. Akash Singhal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22, arises against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1072728002(1) dated 30.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Suffice to say, the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 administrative expenditure of Rs.24,52,677/- in relation to it’s exempt income thereby invoking section 14A of the Act. Learned counsel’s first and foremost vehement argument is that the Assessing Officer herein had not recorded any satisfaction having regard the SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. assessee’s books of account; and, therefore, the impugned disallowance ought to be deleted in very terms. A perusal of the case file indicates that the learned assessing authority had indeed recorded it’s satisfaction thereby rejecting the assessee’s corresponding explanation as not to have any expenditure. That being the case, I see no merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost arguments.
The assessee’s second argument is that it’s case is covered in light of the tribunal’s earlier order(s) having decided the issue against the department.
It is made clear that the learned lower authorities herein have made indirect administrative expenditure disallowance going by the specified formula which has been held as mandatory in nature; more particularly, in light of Maxopp Investment Vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). The assessee’s further contention that it had not incurred any expenditure has already been declined in the assessing authority corresponding detailed discussion in para 3.6 of the assessment order. I accordingly reject the assessee’s second instant substantive ground as well in very terms.
Learned counsel’s third vehement contention is that there is a mistake in the Assessing Officer’s computation of impugned disallowance which is restored back for afresh appropriate
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.