CHALET HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3747/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 January 2021AY 2015-164 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 disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt income of Rs. 13,17,233/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A at Rs. 5,86,52,973/- against exempt income of Rs. 13,17,233/-. The Assessing Officer made a higher disallowance, which was partly deleted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance at Rs. 5,86,52,973/-, stating it could not be less than the amount suo-moto disallowed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A can exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.

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.

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT; 1. This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [for short ‘the ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-52/IT-198/DCIT-CC-4(2)/17-18 order dated 26.03.2019. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 12.10.2017. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the disallowance suo-moto computed by assessee at Rs. 5,86,52,973/- as against the exempt income earned by assessee at Rs. 13,17,233/-. For this assessee has raised following grounds:

Mum 2019-Chalet Hotels Limited

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have restricted the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act to the amount of exempt earned during the year under consideration i.e. Rs. 13,17,233/-, although the appellant has suo moto disallowed. Rs. 5,86,52,973/- in its Return of Income. The appellant hereby prays that on the basis of the findings given by the learned CIT(A) in his order, stating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed dividend income, thus the disallowance under section 14A of the Act must be restricted to Rs 13,17,233/-.

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. We noted that that the Assessing Officer while framing assessment has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’). The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs. 27,15,12,687/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 2,14,47,136/-. Thereby the total disallowance made was Rs. 29,29,59,823/-.

4.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by Assessing Officer under Rule 8D(2)(ii) i.e. interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 27,15,12,687/-, but CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) being administrative expenses at Rs. 5,86,52,973/- as against the exempt income claimed by assessee at Rs. 13,17,233/-. Before the CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the assessee has earned exempt income only to the extent of Rs. 13,17,233/- and the same may be adopted for making disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. Before the CIT(A), the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Mum 2019-Chalet Hotels Limited Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. (91 Taxman.com 154) but CIT(A) noted that the assessee has itself made suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 5,86,52,973/- and the same has to be adopted for this the CIT(A) gave his in para-5.21 as under:

“5.21. In view of the above discussion, the AO is accordingly directed to re-compute the disallowance u/s 14A as explained in paras 5.9 to 5.20 above. However, since, the assessee itself had computed disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 5,86,52,973/- which it had added back in the computation of income, the disallowance u/s 14A so re-computed cannot be less than the said amount of Rs. 5,86,52,973/-. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.”

5.

Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

We noted that the short point of dispute is whether the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is to be restricted to the extent of exempt income i.e. dividend income earned by assessee at Rs. 13,17,233/- or the disallowance as suo-moto computed by asessee at Rs. 5,86,52,973/-. Here, we have gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income.

Hence, we delete the suo-moto disallowance made by assessee at Rs. 5,86,52,973/- and restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income claimed by assessee at Rs. 13,17,233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Mum 2019-Chalet Hotels Limited

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th January 2021.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →