PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUDHIANA vs. M/S TRIDENT LIMITED, (FORMERLY ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD.), E-212, KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/198/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117389201728 March 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI,MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law raised in the appeal had already been answered by the same Court in favour of the assessee in a case titled Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Abhishek Industries Ltd., (2016)380 ITR 652 (P&H). The Court found that the facts of the present case squarely applied to the precedent. Therefore, following the earlier judgment, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The specific reasoning of the Abhishek Industries Ltd. case, which would have addressed the applicability of Rule 8D(2) to investments in equity funds, is not detailed here, but it formed the basis for the dismissal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (the Revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in deleting a disallowance of Rs. 4,95,78,658/-. This disallowance was made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, on account of expenses incurred for making investments in equity funds. The assessment year in question is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the context suggests it pertains to the period covered by the cited precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,95,78,658/- made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D on account of expenses incurred for making investments in equity funds by ignoring the provisions of Rule 8D(2) of I.T. Rules? The Revenue's contention is that the ITAT erred in confirming the deletion of the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that the provisions of Rule 8D(2) were ignored. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side, but it implies that the assessee would have supported the deletion of the disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-198-2017(O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM-6018-CII-2019 in/and ITA-198-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 28.03.2019

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana … Appellant Versus M/s Trident Limited … Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI,

CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE

Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate, for the respondent.

*** KRISHNA MURARI, C.J. (Oral)

This appeal by the revenue raises the following question of law:

“Whether on fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,95,78,658/- made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D on account of expenses incurred for making investments in equity funds by ignoring the provisions of Rule 8D(2) of I.T. Rules?”

The question stands answered by this Court in favour of the assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 in a case tilted Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Abhishek Industries Ltd., (2016)380 ITR 652 (P&H). RAJAN KUMAR 2019.03.29 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-198-2017(O&M)

In view of the answer given to the question in the judgment referred to above, squarely applicable to the facts of this case, the appeal stands dismissed.

( Krishna Murari )

Chief Justice

28.03.2019 Rajan ( Arun Palli ) Judge

Whether speaking / reasoned:

YES

Whether Reportable:

RAJAN KUMAR 2019.03.29 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →