ACIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AARTI STEELS LIMITED, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1620/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 January 2019AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned. This decision was based on a previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A, while the assessee cross-appealed against the confirmation of a partial disallowance. The disallowance related to expenses incurred against dividend/exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified, and if so, to what extent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH ”A”, CHANDIGARH

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash Agarwal
For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR, Shri. Ashish Gupta, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 22/10/2018Pronounced: 16/01/2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1620/Chd/2017
ITA No. 1552/Chd/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश/Order

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: The present Appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross Appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Ludhiana dt. 08/09/2017.

Revenue has raised only one grounds in its appeal which reads as under:

“ Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowed made u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8D(ii) ?” Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-2 has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 57,596/- u/s 14A / Rule 8D (Rs. 38,224/- under rule 8D (2)(ii) & Rs. 7,933/- under rule 8D (2)(iii) ignoring the facts that the investments were made out of own funds and no disallowance was called for without recording any satisfaction as to why disallowance be made. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the above disallowance has ignored the submissions filed the appellant. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making excess allocation of expenses of Rs. 1,31,98,384/- in the exempted unit ignoring the allocation made by the appellant. 4. That in any case the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.

ITA No. 1620/Chd/2017

2.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Iron & Steel Products, Ferro Alloys & Generation and Distribution of Power has filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.09.2010 declaring therein an income of Rs.36,13,207/-.

3.

During the year the Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs. 10.54 Lacs under section 14A r.w.r 8D(1) calculating the expenditure against the dividend earned / exempt income of Rs. 57,595/-.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 57,595/- diligently following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on the earlier order of the Tribunal, we hereby confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No. 1552/Chd/2017

5.

In the appeal of the Assessee the Ground No. 3 has not been pressed and in the case of Ground No. 2 since the matter stands adjudicated in the ground taken by the revenue restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned which was based on the order of this Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009- 10, the decision on this grounds stands merged with the decision of grounds of appeal of the Revenue.

6.

As a result Appeal of the Revenue and Cross Appeal of the Assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� / (SANJAY GARG ) डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार / ( DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member

Date: 16/01/2019 AG Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. CIT, 4. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH, 5. Guard File

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →