SH. ANIL JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 824/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 February 2020AY 2012-133 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 since the assessee incurred no expenditure for exempt income, had sufficient own funds for investments, and no interest was paid on borrowed funds, the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A was not justified. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed no expenditure for earning exempt income, had sufficient own funds for investments, and did not incur interest on borrowed funds for investments. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 10,20,370/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no expenditure is incurred for exempt income and investments are made from own funds. Whether the AO recorded any dissatisfaction as required by Section 14A(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 10.02.2020Pronounced: 17.02.2020

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 13.01.2017.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs. 10,20,370/- made by the AO invoking the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance rejecting the contention of the assessee 2 Anil Jain that no expenditure has been incurred for earning exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A is called for.

(ii) That the assessee having sufficient owned funds, investments having not been made out of borrowed funds, no disallowance on account of interest can be made.

(iii) Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the disallowance under Section 14A can be made only to the extent of tax free income earned by the assessee.”

3.

The relevant factors which are undisputed by both the parties as required for adjudication of the case are as under:

A. Dividend received by the assessee - Rs.4,42,852/-. B. Amount disallowed by the revenue - Rs.10,20,370/-. C. Expenditure claimed by the assessee - Nil D. Own funds of the assessee - Rs.15.55 crores E. Funds invested - Rs.12.93 crores F. Whether any satisfaction as per provisions of Section 14A(2) recorded by the AO - No

4.

Since no expenditure has been incurred or claimed by the assessee in relation to the income not included in total income, since the assessee has sufficient own funds which were utilized for investments & paid no interest on the funds invested and since the Assessing Officer has not expressed any dissatisfaction about the nature of expenditure claimed (in the instant case Nil), keeping in view the provisions of Section 14A, judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (CA No. 10 of 2019), Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT (SC), H.T. Media Vs PCIT ITA 548/2015 (Del. HC), the 3 Anil Jain addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to be deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17/02/2020.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →