DAKSHIN INFRSTUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 787/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 March 2019AY 2014-154 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if no exempt income, such as dividend income, is earned during the relevant period, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This decision followed a precedent set by the Delhi High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in civil construction, made significant investments in other companies. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, presuming administrative expenses were incurred to manage these investments.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year.

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(1)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 ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Hearing: 20.02.2019Pronounced: 13.03.2019

Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.

This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2014-15 against the order of the CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad, dated 23.02.2018.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of civil construction, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 electronically on 28.09.2014 declaring income of Rs.62,05,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dated 07.09.2015 was issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee company has made investments in other companies to the tune of Rs.45,33,31,212/-.

Page 1 of 4

.

Presuming that the company must have incurred some sort of administrative/managerial expenditure to manage the investments, the AO observed that the provision of section 14A r.w.r 8D is applicable and the disallowance of expenditure is to be made accordingly. Therefore, he worked out the disallowance of Rs.22,66,656/- under rule 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of the average value of the investment and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the assessing Officer without giving any further opportunity. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the provisions u / s 14 A of the 1. t act is applicable. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in making addition an amount of Rs.22,66,656/- u/s 14A of the I.T.Act . 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact the appellant not received any exemption income. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.

3.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the relevant A.Y, the assessee has not earned any dividend/exempt income and therefore, the provisions of section 14A are not applicable to this A.Y. He has filed copies of the

Page 2 of 4

.

return of income, computation of total income for the A.Y 2014-15 along with financial accounts to demonstrate that the assessee has not earned any dividend/exempt income during the relevant A.Y. Thus, he prayed for deleting the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A).

4.

The learned DR, however, relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 33 (Del.) has held that if there is no dividend income (which is exempt from tax) earned during the relevant period, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. This decision has been followed by us in a number of cases to which both of us are signatories. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (cited supra), the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th March, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.Rifaur Rahman) (P. Madhavi Devi) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Hyderabad, dated 13th March, 2019. Vinodan/sps

Page 3 of 4

.

Copy to:

1 M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Ltd C/o Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, Flat No.102, Gouri Apartment, Urdulane, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 2 ITO Ward 17(1) Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-5 Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – 5 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File

By Order

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →