AHMEDNAGAR SHAHAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 76/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the manner of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was unclear in both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative bank, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of Broken Period Interest and under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the addition for Broken Period Interest but failed to address one part of the Section 14A disallowance.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the correct method for calculating the disallowance under Section 14A, specifically concerning the average value of investments and the applicability of amended rules.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadekar
For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Hearing: 23.05.2022Pronounced: 26.05.2022

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 24.10.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a cooperative bank engaged in banking business. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 02.10.2013 Rs.7,18,86,595/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.10,83,41,170/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.47,96,280/- on account of Broken Period Interest. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3,16,20,370/- under the provisions of section 14A of the Act, with which, we are concerned. 3. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of Broken Period Interest of Rs.47,96,280/-. The ld. CIT(A) also directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), however, failed to deal with the disallowance made under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. 4. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →