SHRI VIJAYKUMAR DEVICHAND NIBJIYA,PUNE vs. ASSISTNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 106/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 August 2022AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to establish the nexus between the disallowed expenditure and exempt income. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 7,99,980/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The lower authorities disallowed administrative expenditure without clarifying if it related to exempt income yielding investments.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly made without establishing a nexus with 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, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri K. Srinivasan (virtual)
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

This assessee‟s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi‟s order dated 14-12-2021 passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037776426 Involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee‟s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities‟ action invoking section 14A r.w. rule 8D disallowance of Rs. 7,99,980/-. I find that there is hardly any requirement to deliver deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Suffice to say, both the lower authorities have disallowed administrative expenditure component under Rule 8D(ii) of the I.T. Rules without even making it clear as to whether the same relates to exempt income yielding investment only or not. Faced with this situation, I quote Asstt. CIT Vs. Vireet Investments (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi- SB) and ACB India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 374 ITR 108 (Del) to restore the ITA 106/PUN/2022 Vijay D. Nibjya A.Y. 2016-16 instant computation issue back to the Assessing Officer in very terms as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. . Order pronounced in the open Court on this 17th August 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 →