ADHIRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2919/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 October 2019AY 2014-154 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made as the assessee had sufficient own funds. For administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only dividend-bearing investments should be considered, and the disallowance was less than the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exempt income and suo moto disallowed Rs 18,000 under Section 14A. The AO, using Rule 8D, made a disallowance of Rs 36,58,240. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the exempt income of Rs 18,00,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A, computed as per Rule 8D, was justified, particularly concerning interest and administrative expenses.

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra
For Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi
Hearing: 24/09/2019Pronounced: 04/10/2019

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/184/2016-17 dated 05/01/2018 (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 23/12/2016 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 1(1)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

M/s. Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

2.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee had earned exempt income of Rs 18,00,000/- during the year under consideration and had disallowed suo moto a sum of Rs 18,000/- u/s 14A of the Act in the return of income. The ld AO directly resorted to computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and made the following disallowance :-

1.

Under Second Limb towards Interest - 26,84,729 Under Third Limb towards administrative expenses - 9,91,961 ------------------ 36,76,240 Less: Disallowance u/s 14A made by assessee - 18,000 ----------------- Disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2) in assessment - 36,58,240 -----------------

4.

The ld CITA observed that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should be restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income in the sum of Rs 18,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have gone through the financial statements of the assessee as on 31.3.2014 and 31.3.2013 and we find that the assessee is having sufficient own funds which are much more than the investments made by the assessee which had yielded exempt income and hence by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom), no disallowance of interest under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the M/s. Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rules could be made. Hence we direct the ld AO to straight away delete the disallowance of Rs 26,84,729/- made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules.

5.1. With regard to disallowance of administrative expenses made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, we hold that only dividend bearing investments should be considered by the ld AO for disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) in the light of decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments reported in 165 ITD 27 (Del )(SB). We find from the Investments Schedule reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2014, the assessee had received dividend only from investments in 9% Non-cumulative redeemable preference shares of Chandan Steel Limited to the tune of Rs 2 crores. Hence 0.5% of such investment would work out to Rs 10,000/- only , whereas the assessee itself had made suo moto disallowance of Rs 18,000/- in the return of income. Hence no disallowance need to be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 04/10/2019

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →