DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIA NIVESH LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3789/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 February 2018AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the disallowance should be re-computed after reducing investments made in sister concerns, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed dividend income as exempt and made a partial disallowance for expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Section 14A read with Rule 8D and made a significant addition. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to re-compute the disallowance by excluding investments in sister concerns.

What were the issues?

Whether investments in sister concerns should be excluded when calculating average investment for disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Achal Bangani (AR)
For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR), Shri Achal Bangani (AR)
Hearing: 08/11/2017Pronounced: 07/02/2018

आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →