DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1416/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 April 2017AY 2013-143 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals) order, which had rightly adjudicated the issues in detail. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order concerning disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee argued that no exempt income was earned and investments were made from reserves, not borrowed funds, for business strategy.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is justified when no exempt income is earned and investments are made from own funds for business strategy.

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, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT-3)
Hearing: 18.04.2017Pronounced: 21.04.2017

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2 dated 15.06.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 14A should be applied only when there is an exempted income earned out of investment and not otherwise. The Appellant had not earned exempted income during the AY 2013-14.

3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the case of Appellant, the amount invested in the subsidiaries was met out of the accumulated reserves and surplus. The reserves & surplus available was more than the short term borrowings. Hence, there was no money diverted out of the borrowed funds. The Appellant relies on the decision in the case of DC IT V Microlabs Ltd, ITAT Bangalore (62 taxmann.com 60) where it has been stated that availability of profit, share capital and reserves & surplus are much more than the investments made by the assessee which could yield tax free income, then the disallowance of interest expense u/s 14A is not justified.

4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the investment was made by the Appellant in its subsidiaries and was on account of business strategy and not to earn exempted income. Hence, to carry out the same line of business the investment was made in the subsidiary. Accordingly, this investment should not be compared with the other exempted investment for disallowance u/s 14A.

5.

The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/ arguments at the time of hearing.”

2.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 18.04.2017, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of the notice of hearing. AD card is placed on record. Since the assessee did not appear, we have no option, but to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee. Accordingly, the revenue was heard.

3.

We have carefully examined the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the impugned grounds and we find that he has rightly adjudicated the issues in detail and we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(Appeals).

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of April, 2017.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →