YASH RAJ FILMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5630/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide the average value of investment as per a Special Bench decision. The AO was directed to consider only investments yielding income during the year for calculating average investment.

What were the facts?

The assessee earned exempt income from mutual funds and claimed corresponding expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure related to interest and a percentage of average investment. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure related to exempt income should be disallowed from total income or only from exempt income. The correct method for calculating average investment for disallowance purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(34)

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, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Tufad Ahmad Khan, D.R
Hearing: 20.09.2017Pronounced: 31.10.2017

O R D E R

Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.09.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The short facts of the case are that during the year the assessee has earned income of Rs.75,30,868/- from mutual fund which is exempt under section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act. Assessee was asked to explain as to why the corresponding expenditure should not be disallowed. The assessee replied but the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) did not accept it. The AO held

2 M/s. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. that assessee has made investments of Rs.28,04,01,707/- in this year. Therefore, he disallowed expenditure being interest expenditure and 0.5% of average investment.

3.

Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO should have disallowed the expenditure in relation to exempt income and not the total income. Only those investments are considered for computation of average value investment which yields the income during the year.

5.

The Ld. D.R. submitted that only investment made on 31.03.09 which yield the income has to be considered for calculating the value of investment.

6.

We find that Ld. D.R. fairly conceded. In the interest of justice and fairplay, we restore this issue back to the file of AO to decide the average value of investment as per the decision of special bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi – Trib.) (SB).

More judgments on Section 10(34)

All 731 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(34) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →