AVINASH NIVRUTI BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1239/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 September 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed only on investments that yielded exempt income, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and a Special Bench of the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee earned exempt income from partnership firms and dividends. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 54,50,000 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on total investments. The CIT(A) affirmed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be calculated on all investments or only those yielding 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, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &, Shri Nimit Gujrathi
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Pune on 27.02.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.54,50,000/- u/s.14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

2 ITA No.1239/PUN/2017 Avinash N. Bhosale

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee earned

exempt income of Rs.80.14 lakh as share from partnership firms and

Rs.25.05 lakh as dividend and PPF interest etc. No disallowance

u/s.14A was offered. The Assessing Officer, on getting satisfied,

computed the disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) at

Rs.54,50,000/-, being 0.5% of the average value of investments.

The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance.

4.

We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant

material on record. The ld. AR fairly admitted that the disallowance

u/s.14A is called for. He, however, submitted that in computing

such disallowance only those investments should be considered

which have yielded exempt income.

5.

Ordinarily the disallowance is made at 0.5% of the average

value of investments under rule 8D(2)(iii). However, in this regard,

it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ACB

India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the

average value of investments, for the purposes of Rule 8D(2)(iii),

should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt

income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has

been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT

vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB)

3 ITA No.1239/PUN/2017 Avinash N. Bhosale

holding that only those investments should be considered for

computing average value of investments which yield exempt

income during the year. Respectfully following the precedents, we

set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the

AO for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) in

accordance with our above observations.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th September, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 17th September, 2019 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे 5. “बी” / DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.1239/PUN/2017 Avinash N. Bhosale

Date 1. Draft dictated on 17-09-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 17-09-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. 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 →