JANARDAN KUMAR KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1332/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 October 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the total expenditure having a nexus with exempt income. The Revenue failed to establish a nexus for certain expenses, thus only the direct expenditure disallowance was sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the disallowance of ₹3,04,237/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee had earned exempt income of ₹6,23,613/-. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance based on direct expenditure, proportionate interest, and administrative expenses.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantification of disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal examined whether the entire disallowance claimed by the Assessing Officer was justified based on the nexus with exempt income.

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 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’s order dated 08.05.2018 passed in case No.135/CIT(A)-13/W-44(2)/Kol/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The instant taxpayer’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking sec. 14A r.w.s Rule 8D disallowance of ₹3,04,237/- in the course of assessment as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. There is no dispute about the assessee having derived exempt income to the tune of ₹6,23,613/-. The question involved in the instant appeal is that of its quantification only. The Assessing Officer computed the same to be comprising of direct expenditure of ₹44,483/-, proportionate interest and ITA No.1332/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Janardan Kr. Kothari Vs. ITO Wd-44(2), Kol. Page 2 administrative expenditure of ₹18,430/- and ₹2,41,324/-; respectively. The assessee’s only argument before me is that it had claimed total expenditure on account of banking charges, income tax, interest, LIC premium, Mediclaim & STT ₹16,400/-, ₹21,907/-, ₹1,28,136/-, ₹25,777/- and ₹44,483/-; respectively. There is no challenge so far the security transaction tax disallowance concerned to be in the nature of direct expenditure related to exempt income in same stands confirmed therefore.

3.

Coming to other expenses, I find that no such claim was raised at the assessee’s behest in its books. This tribunal’s decision in Vision EL Tech and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.1519/Bang/2016 decided on 31.05.2017 holds that the impugned disallowance can’t exceed the total expenditure having nexus with exempt income. The Revenue fails to pin point any such nexus qua the latter two heads. I therefore sustain only the direct expenditure disallowance of ₹44,483/-. The assessee gets part relief accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 05/10/2018 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 05/10/2018 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Janardan Kr. Kothari, C/o Sri S.L. Kochar, Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-19

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-44(2), 3 Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-700001 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, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO 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 →