ALCO COMPANY PVT. .LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6320/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 January 2020AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The AO had correctly applied the principles of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investments by excluding investments yielding taxable income from the calculation of average investments.

What were the facts?

The assessee company earned substantial exempt income and made a suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a higher disallowance under Rule 8D, considering both direct and indirect expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified, particularly concerning the calculation of indirect expenses and the exclusion of investments yielding taxable 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(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, “A”, BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Tasneem Varawala
For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Hearing: 07/01/2020Pronounced: 15/01/2020

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-2/IT/10315/2016-17 dated 14/05/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 07/11/2016 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 1(1)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

1.

M/s. Alco Company Pvt. Ltd., 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r.8D of the rules in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee had earned exempt income in the sum of Rs.23,47,99,599/-. The assessee had made suo-moto disallowance u/s.14A of the Act in the sum of Rs.21,56,725/- which admittedly comprises of disallowance of direct expenses in the sum of Rs.5,22,401/- and remaining towards indirect expenses. The ld. AO however, proceeded to make disallowance under rule 8D(2) of the rules under first limb for Rs.5,22,401/- and under third limb for Rs.50,52,267/-. After reducing the disallowance already made by the assessee in the sum of Rs.21,56,725/-, the ld. AO made net disallowance of Rs.34,17,943/- u/s.14A of the Act in the assessment. Before us there is no dispute with regard to disallowance of direct expenses made in the sum of Rs.5,22,401/- by the ld. AO. The ld. AR placed on record the copy of this Tribunal’s order in its own case for A.Y.2010-11 dated 30/07/2018 wherein the issue was remanded to the file of the ld. AO to decide in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in 402 ITR 640. But we find from the perusal of the assessment order that the ld. AO had duly considered the ultimate principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investments by properly excluding the investments made in foreign companies which would yield taxable income while considering the average value of investments for the purpose of disallowance under third limb of rule 8D(2) of the rules. We find that this working of the ld. AO has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A), which in our considered opinion, does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 15/01/2020

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →