M/S. RAHUL METALS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1892/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2006-20072 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Citing the decision in Joint Investments P.Ltd, the disallowance was restricted to the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee, which was Rs. 3,750.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 39 days due to a communication gap. The primary issue involved a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, amounting to Rs. 7,41,845.

What were the issues?

The main issue was the quantum of disallowance under Section 14A when the exempt income earned was significantly lower than the disallowance computed under Rule 8D.

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, “A-SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM ]

1.

This Assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A), 1, Kolkata’s order dated 20-06-2018 passed in case no. 591567971130117/CIT(A)- 1/Kol./ITO. Ward-3(2)/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) . Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 39 days stated to be delayed for communication gap between the assessee and its AR.. The Revenue has not disputed the same. I therefore condone the impugned delay of 39 days in filing this appeal. Case is taken up for consideration on merits.

3.

Both the parties reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition/disallowance u/s. 14A/R.W.R 8D of the I.T Rules, 1962 amounting to Rs.7,41,845/-. It transpires at the outset that assessee has derived exempt income amounting to Rs.3,750/- only during the relevant previous year. I quote the decision of the hon’ble Delhi high court in 372 ITR 694 (Del) in Joint Investments P.Ltd V/s. CIT to restrict the disallowance to the extent of Rs.3,750/- in these peculiar facts and circumstances. The assesse gets part relief in above terms.

4.

This Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 15-05-2019 Sd/- [ S.S.Godara ] Judicial Member Dated : 15 -05-2019 **PRADIP, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Appellant/Assessee: M/s. Bulk Trade (P) Ltd 2 Barretto Lane, Room No. 104, Kolkata-69.

2. Respondent/Department: Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Aaykar Bhawan,P-7 Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69. 3..C.I.T(A).- 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.

5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →