SHRI RAJIV MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1124/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2019AY 2013-142 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 held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) is not applicable when the assessee has not claimed any administrative expenditure. The purpose of the provision is to disallow only actual expenditure incurred.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no expenditure has been claimed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’s order dated 19.04.2018 passed in case No.186/CIT(A)-4/C-12(3)/16-17 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that assessee’s sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal challenges correctness of CIT(A)’s order confirming Assessing Officer’s action disallowing administrative expense u/s 14A r.w.s Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 amounting to ₹1,39,682/- @ 0.5% average value of investments. Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing that assessee had not claimed any administrative expenditure at all as per its computation forming part

ITA No.1124/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Sh Rajiv Mundhra Vs. DCIT, Cir-12(2),Kol. Page 2 of the case file. This clinching fact forms sufficient reason for me to hold that the impugned disallowance provision sec. 14A r.ws. 8D(2)(iii) does not apply in absence of any actual expenditure being claimed at the assessee’s behest. I therefore, delete the impugned disallowance for this precious reason alone as purpose of said statutory provision is to disallow only the expenditure actually incurred. The assessee succeeds in his sole substantive grievance therefore.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 31/01/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 31/01/2019 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Shri Rajiv Mundhra, 126, Southern Avenue, Kolkata-29

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-DCIT, Circle-12(2), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →