ITO, WARD-7(2)/KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RAGHU VINNCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 430/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2018AY 2011-122 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 decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the extent of actual exempt dividend income. The Revenue failed to point out any distinguishing facts or law.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee derived exempt dividend income. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the amount of actual exempt dividend income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantification of disallowance under Section 14A. The dispute was whether the disallowance should be limited to the exempt income earned.

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, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 emanated from Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata’s order 09.01.2017 in cases No.10122/CIT(A)-18/16-17/ITO, Wd-7(2) Kol, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Revenue’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal is that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in restricting the Assessing Officer’s action making Section 14A r.w Rule 8D disallowance of ₹65,61,800/- to the extent the amount of actual exempt dividend income of ₹4,04,000/-. There is no dispute on facts that the assessee has derived the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 ITO Wd-7(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Raghu Vinncom Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 exempt income from dividends. The question for us is that only that of quantification of the impugned disallowance. The CIT(A)’s discussion in para 4.3 has for considered various judicial precedents in partly accepting assessee grievance to the extent of its exempt income (supra) Hon'ble Delhi high court’s judgment in (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) Joint. Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT as well as hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high court’s decision in DCIT vs Empering Packaging Pvt. Ltd ITA 415/2015 dated 12.06.2016 decide the very issue in assessee’s favour. The Revenue fails to pin-point any distinction on facts or law therein. We thus reject its sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →