REVASHANKAR GEMS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 977/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 April 2019AY 2012-133 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 restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was based on a previous identical issue for an earlier assessment year where similar directions were given.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer computed a higher disallowance, which was then restricted by the first appellate authority to the exempt income earned. The assessee appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.977/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No.978/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2012-13 and 2013-14 contest common order of Ld. first appellate authority qua confirmation of certain disallowance u/s 14A. 2. Both the representative, at the outset, converge on the point that the identical issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 dated 05/02/2018 wherein the matter has been restored back with certain directions. A copy of the order been placed on record. Therefore, similar directions have been sought by the respective representatives for these years also.

3.

Facts on record for AY 2012-13 reveal that the assessee has been saddled with net disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D for Rs.13.64 Lacs. The assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.8.83 Lacs and offered suo-moto disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.3.13 Lacs, the break- up of which has been given on para 2 of the quantum assessment order. However, Ld. AO computed aggregate disallowance u/r 8D (2) for Rs.16.78 Lacs and accordingly after adjusting suo-moto disallowance already offered by the assessee, added the differential amount of Rs.13.64 Lacs to the income of the assessee. The Ld. first appellate authority, after considering assessee’s submissions, directed Ld.AO to restrict the same to Rs.8.83 Lacs, being exempt income earned by the assessee. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

Upon perusal of cited order of the Tribunal dated 05/02/2018 for AY 2011-12, we find that the matter of disallowance u/s 14A has been restored back to the file of Ld. AO with certain directions as given in para-6 of the cited order. Therefore, fact being identical, the matter stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication on similar lines. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

The impugned order is common order for both the years and the facts are pari-materia the same for AY 2013-14. Therefore, our directions as given in AY 2012-2013 shall mutatis mutandis apply to AY 2013-14 also. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

Resultantly, both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd April, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 03/04/2019 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →