NEPEAN FINVEST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4000/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 August 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of the actual exempt income received by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exempt income on account of dividend. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses relatable to this exempt income under Section 14A, amounting to Rs. 4,02,020/-. The assessee argued that the disallowance should be restricted to the amount of exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 10(34)

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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Daval Shah, AR
Hearing: 19.08.2019Pronounced: 19.08.2019

आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

1.

This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-10, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in Mumbai/10683/2015-16 dated 30.04.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1) Mumbai (in short DCIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide order

27.03.2015, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules 1962 (hereinafter the Rules) amounting to Rs. 4,02,020/-. For this assessee has raised the following grounds-

“1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of the Act amounting to ₹ 4,02,020/- 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the disallowance under section 14A could not have exceeded the amount of exempt income Under section 10(34) of the Act.”

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee company has received exempt income on account of dividend at Rs. 1,56,752/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. He stated that to this extent, the disallowance should be restricted and not as computed by AO at Rs. 4,02,020/-. When this fact was confronted to the learned Sr. DR, he fairly agree with that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2016, wherein this issue has been considered following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem invest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held as under: -

Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 749/2014, which holds that the expression “does not form part of the total income” in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not apply to the facts of this case as no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actual income was received by the assessee and the same was includible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authorities held that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, they could not have been included in the total income.”

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →