M/S BALAJI MINES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO, MARGAO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 325/PAN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 January 2019AY 2013-142 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, as per the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are to be considered for computing the average value of investments under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A. The assessee argued that only investments yielding exempt income during the year should be considered for calculating the average value of investments.

What were the issues?

Whether investments not yielding exempt income during the year should be included in the computation of disallowance under Section 14A.

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, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Shri Y. V. Raviraj
Hearing: 15.11.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI

BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

ITA No.325/Pan./2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Balaji Mines and Minerals Private Asst. CIT-1, Limited Margao Range, Goa Vs. Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACB 7003 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P. J. Pardiwalla : Shri Y. V. Raviraj Respondent by Date of Hearing : 15.11.2018 : 14.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This is an appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– Panaji, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:

1.

i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.17,79,295/- u/s. 14A of the ITA made by the assessing officer by holding that such disallowance was mandatory under Rule 8(D)(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without establishing nexust between exempt income earned and expenditure incurred.

Without prejudice to the above ii. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that as per Rule 8(D)(2)(iii), only those investemtns which yielded exempt income during the year were to be considered for computing average value of investments.

3.

At the outset, in this case, the ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that he is only

pressing for the without prejudice ground. He submitted that the said issue is covered by

the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. and ANR.

(2017) 165 ITD 0027 (Delhi) ((SB)).

2 ITA No.324/Pan./2017 4. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that the ITAT

Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has expounded that for

the purpose of computation under rule 8D(2)(iii) only those investments which yielded

exempt income during the year were to be considered for computing the average value of

the investment. We direct accordingly.

5.

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced by listing the result on the Notice Board of the Bench under Rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Sd/ Sd/- - RAM LAL NEGI SHAMIM YAHYA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14.01.2019 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Panji City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Panji; (6) Guard file.

By Order Roshani, Sr. PS

(Sr. P.S./P.S.) ITAT

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →