DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. TAMILNADU POWER FINANCE & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2282/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 December 2019AY 2013-143 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 39,70,832. The Revenue failed to point out any error in the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which reduced the disallowance under Section 14A from Rs. 7.39 Crores to Rs. 39,70,832. The assessee had not filed an appeal against the reduced disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income or a reasonable percentage of average investment.

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, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 04.12.2019Pronounced: 04.12.2019

O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai in 17/CIT(A)-11 dated 30.05.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 against the reduction of the disallowance u/s.14A from Rs.7.39 Crores as made by the Assessing Officer to Rs.39,70,832/- by the learned CIT(A).

2.

Ms. R. Anita, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative supported the order the learned Assessing Officer.

4.

In reply, it was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the actual exempt income earned by the assessee was only Rs.1,12,921/-. It was a submission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 372 ITR 694 which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP in the case of ABCAUS reported in 2639 (2018)(11) SC, the disallowance was liable to be restricted to the exempt income. It was however a submission that the assessee has not filed an appeal.

5.

We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.

6.

As it is noticed, the assessee has not filed an appeal against the confirmation of the disallowance u/s.14A at Rs.39,70,832/- and as the Revenue has not been able to point out any error in the order of the learned CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance u/s.14A to Rs.39,70,832/-, being 0.5% of 3 -: the average value of the investment, the order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue stands confirmed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th December, 2019 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →