ERP INFRASTRUCTUREES PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)-1, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3146/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2020AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for this purpose. Ground No. 2 regarding interest disallowance was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming disallowance under Section 14A and disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). The assessee had itself disallowed expenditure related to exempt income under Section 37.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income, and whether interest paid on loans was for business purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 36(1)(iii),Section 37

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, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani

PAN AABCE8953A. Assessee by : Shri Nimesh Chothani Revenue by : Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing : 29-09-2020 Date of pronouncement : 29-09-2020 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. This is in appeal by the assessee directed against order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 08/03/2019 and pertains to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-20, Mumbai erred in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to Rs.1,00,92,156/-. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the disallowance/s 14A has to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned during the year under consideration.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-20, Mumbai erred in confirming disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs.13,78,519/- treating the same as not incurred for business purpose.

ERP Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd., a. Without prejudice to the above, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified as the same is contrary to his own action of allowing certain interest paid on loans taken for such purposes by treating the same as for business purpose.

3.

As regards ground no. 1, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the assessee submissions that disallowance u/s. 14 shall be restricted to the extent of the exempt income.

4.

Learned Departmental Reprehensive in this regard submitted that assessing officer has not made any disallowance. That assessee has himself made the disallowance u/s. 37(1). That the same is duly noted the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. Per contra Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted the assessee has duly mentioned this aspect of disallowance u/s. 14A and Ld. CIT(A) has erred is not accepting the same. 6. Upon careful consideration I note that in the computation of income the assessee has mentioned under the head disallowance u/s. 37:- Expenditure relating to exempt income disallowance u/s. 14A = Rs.1,00,92,156/-. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) on this issue denied the relief regarding the disallowance by observing as under:- 4.41 I have considered the contentions of the appellant. I find that appellant's contention is totally wrong. From appellant's computation of total income which is reproduced above, the can be seen that the appellant had disallowed the expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act. In other words, the sum of Rs. l,00,92,156/-was disallowed on the ground that those expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the appellant's business. The appellant has also stated in schedule one of the competition of total income that the said sum was relatable to the ERP Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd.,

exempted income which reinforces the appellant is earlier admission that the said sum was not incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the appellant's business income and hence not allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. Therefore, I find absolutely no merit in the appellant's ground of appeal

. Accordingly, I dismiss the ground of appeal No. 1.

8. Upon careful consideration I find that interest of justice will be served if the issue is remitted to the file of assessing office. If the disallowance in this regard is being made u/s. 14A, the assessing officer shall restrict the same to the extent of exempt income on the touchstone of Hon’ble High Court decision in case of Delight Enterprises of 2009 dated 26.02.2009 in which the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has followed the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Chem Investment vs CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del)

9. Ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above proposition.

10. As regards ground no.2, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing the same.

11. Accordingly ground no.2 is dismissed as not pressed.

12. In the result this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as above. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules on this 29/09/2020

Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCONTANT MEMBER.

Mumbai; Dated 29/09/ 2020 N.V Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.

ERP Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd.,

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →