M/S BHARAT MARKETING & ADVERTISING CO. PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5003/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2017AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A must be restricted to the extent of dividend income earned. For the disallowance of interest expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication in light of a High Court decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, an advertising agency, invested a significant amount in shares of an unquoted company and also provided interest-free loans to its subsidiaries. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses under Section 14A and a portion of interest paid on borrowed capital.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A can exceed exempt income, and whether interest expenses are deductible when interest-free loans are given to subsidiaries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, DELHI BENCH “SMC-I”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Kapoor, CA
For Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR

per the provisions of the Act then it is for the Assessing Officer to make the necessary corrections but, in any view of the matter, income has to be correctly computed as per the provisions of the Act. However, alternate contention of ld. counsel for the assessee, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra), deserves to be accepted and the disallowance has to be restricted only to the dividend income of Rs.21.71. I direct accordingly. In the result, the ground nos.2 to 7 are partly allowed.

8.

Apropos ground no.8, ld. counsel pointed out that loans were given in assessment year 1997-98 to subsidiary companies considering business expediency and need of the business out of free reserves. He further pointed out that the loans were taken by the assessee company during the previous years i.e. assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 for business needs and not for giving interest free loans. He submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the facts afresh in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 128 (Delhi).

9.

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. The facts need to be re-marshaled in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. (supra). I, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. In the result, this ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of January, 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 →