CHETTINAD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 858/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 July 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the revenue could provide material to support the nature of the payment. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed developmental and consent fees paid to a Development Authority as expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, treating them as capital in nature. A disallowance under Section 14A was also made.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the developmental and consent fees paid to the Development Authority were revenue or capital expenditure. Another issue concerned the disallowance under Section 14A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 22,Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 10.07.2019Pronounced: 31.07.2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in 13/A-1 dated 30.01.2018, for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

M/s. Chettinad Financial Management Services Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, is in the business of money lending to its group concern. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee claimed developmental charges and consent fees for water

Mamallapuram New Town Development Authority. The Assessing Officer held that these payments are made on account of the building constructed by the assessee for the premises at Survey No. 43/1A, 43/1B, 43/2A in Pondicherry Village, Thirukazukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Since, the income from let out of these premises was offered under the head ‘house property’, the impugned expenses are not allowable U/s. 22 to 24, as they were incurred for obtaining planning permission / basic facility charges which are paid for the purpose of acquisition and construction of the building. The nature of expenditure being capital, he observed that it could be at best added to the cost of the building. Further, the Assessing Officer made disallowance at Rs.1,44,268/- U/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that the payment made to Mamallapuram New Town Development Authority is akin to Municipal taxes and hence the assessee claim should be allowed. When the Bench asked for the relevant copies of the relevant Act / Rule under which the impugned amount were charged by the Mamallapuram Development Authority, neither the assessee nor the Revenue could place any material before us. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit this issue back

Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee shall place relevant material in support of its contention before the Assessing Officer and shall comply with the requirements of the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer may also conduct appropriate enquiry to decide the nature of the impugned claim and after affording due opportunity to the assessee, decide the issue in accordance with law. Therefore, the corresponding grounds of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Since the Ld.AR has not argued on other grounds of appeal, all other grounds are treated as dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on the 31st July, 2019 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →