DCIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIA INFOLINE INVESTMENT SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4184/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was already restored to the Assessing Officer in the assessee's own appeal for the same assessment year. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order concerning disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the Tribunal had already restored the assessee's appeal on this issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A is applicable when a company's funds exceed its investments. The primary issue was the procedural aspect of restoring the appeal for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Mehta, Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Hearing: 05.02.2020Pronounced: 30.09.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 29.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13.

(A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. India Infoline Investment Services Ltd., 2. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - 1 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in concluding that where the funds of a company were more than the investment made, in such case, the provision of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D are inapplicable. "

2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal.”

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the appeal filed by the assessee on the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal in ITA.No. 3901/Mum/2018 dated 18.09.2019. Therefore, it is submitted that since the appeal of the assessee has been restored to the file Assessing Officer the revenue’s appeal also may be restored to the file Assessing Officer for denovo consideration.

4.

Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer.

5.

On hearing both sides, and perusing the order of the Tribunal we find that the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh and to decide in accordance with earlier Tribunal orders. In view of the order of the Tribunal in Assessee’s appeal for the assessment year under consideration

(A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. India Infoline Investment Services Ltd., we restore the issue in Revenue’s appeal also to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall decide the issue afresh.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

Before parting, we noticed that this appeal was heard on 05.02.2020 and the pronouncement is delayed due to lockdown in view of COVID-19 pandemic. The pronouncement is as per Rule 34(5) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision vide orders dated 15.04.2020 and 15.06.2020 extending the time bound periods specified by Hon'ble High Court by removing the period under lockdown. This aspect was also dealt with in detail by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT v. JSW Steel Vide order dated 14.05.2020 in ITA.No. 6264/Mum/2018.

Order pronounced on 30.09.2020 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →