KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 643/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 July 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, citing relevant case law. The disallowance was upheld in principle but remanded for recomputation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., filed four appeals against disallowances made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The assessee argued that the lower authorities considered all investments, not just those yielding exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be computed based on all investments or only those yielding 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(2)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, ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : These assessee’s four appeals for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 arise against the CIT(A)-11 Pune’s common order No. CIT(A), Pune-11/30372/2016- 17 dated 15-12-2016 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

We note at the outset that the assessee’s instant four appeals instituted on 11-12-2020 suffer from identical delay of 226 days in filing which falls in Covid 19 pandemic outbreak period. The same stands condoned.

3.

Next comes the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking sectionm14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance(s) of Rs.1,60,20,597/-,1,89,55,733/-, 1,85,43,887/-and 1,43,44,460/- casewise, respectively. Learned representative raises his solitary argument during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have taken into consideration the assessee’s entire investment than 2 to 646/PUN/2020 2013-14 to 2016-17 Kolte Patil Developers only those yielding exemption income in the relevant previous year(s) before us. We make it clear that he had neither pressed nor raised any other argument or ground; as the case may be. Mr. Walimbe has placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities’ orders.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find force in assessee’s stand. The Case-law in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has already decided the instant issue that as assesses investments yielding exempt only have to be taken into consideration whilst computing sec. 14A r.w.rule 8D. We thus uphold the impugned disallowance in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to recompute the same as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpsoes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 07th day of July 2022.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →