ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3771/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 November 2017AY 2012-133 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 held that the issue was covered by its own earlier decisions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, where the CIT(A)'s decision in favour of the assessee was upheld. Therefore, the revenue's ground of appeal was rejected.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer had made the disallowance, and the CIT(A) deleted it. The facts for the current assessment year were identical to previous years.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, considering the AO's satisfaction with the assessee's claim and the validity of expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Jain

O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue raises the following effective ground of appeal:

"1. On facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A)34, Mumbai erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r. w. Rule 8D of 95,95,3561- by holding that the Assessing Officer has not recorded in the order as to how in regard to the accounts The AO was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in order to prove that the expenses were not valid." favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 in & ITA No.1411/Mum/2015. The Tribunal, vide order dated 25-01-2017, dealt with the issue in great detail at paragraphs 25 to 32 of the order to arrive at a conclusion that the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and thereby dismissed the ground raised by the revenue.

3. The facts and circumstances in the assessment year before us are stated to be identical to assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.

Therefore, we do not find a reason to arrive at a different conclusion, than the one already arrived at by the Tribunal. Hence, consistent with the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the revenue. The ground raised by the revenue is hereby rejected.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th November, 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 →