ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5678/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 December 2019AY 2014-153 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It relied on a Special Bench decision that only the average value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,79,74,266 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.5,512, considering the dividend income and related investments.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the correct computation of disallowance under Section 14A, specifically regarding the investments that yielded exempt income.

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, DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI

Before: MS SUSHMA CHOWLA & SHRI R.K. PANDA

For Appellant: Ms Sweeti Khotari, Advocate, DR (Appellants)
Hearing: 28.11.2019Pronounced: 31.12.2019

ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 5th June, 2017 of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:-

“1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition to Rs.5512/- as against Rs.1,79,74,266/- made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income Tax Rules. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground (s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

3.

The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,79,74,266/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the IT Act r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee has received dividend income of Rs.6,48,431/- from the investment of Rs.11,02,496/-. He, therefore, held that0.5% of the above investment which comes to Rs.5,512/- to be treated as expenses incurred for earning exempt income. He accordingly restricted the disallowance to Rs.5,512/- as against Rs.1,79,74,266/- made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2017) 165 ITD 0027 (Del) (SB), held that average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year only shall be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A. Since the ld.CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee has received dividend income of Rs.6,48,431/- from the current investment of Rs.11,02,496/-, therefore, 0.5% of the above investment has to be treated as expenses incurred for earning exempt income which comes to 5,512/- and which is in accordance with the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal cited (supra). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →