ITO, WARD-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MADHUMALATI MERCHANDIES P. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1785/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 December 2017AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as there was no exempt income. It also upheld the deletion of addition under Section 2(22)(e) as the assessee was not a registered shareholder.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order by the CIT(A) which deleted disallowances made by the AO. The revenue appealed this deletion. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is justified when no exempt income is earned, and whether Section 2(22)(e) applies when the assessee is not a registered shareholder.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM ]

Hearing: 28.12.2017Pronounced: 28.12.2017

ORDER This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] dated 09.05.2017 against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.02.2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

3.

After hearing the Ld. DR, I dispose of this case on merits qua the assessee by holding as follows.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance u/s 14A as there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 90 CCH 0081 was rightly applied. Hence, this ground of the revenue is dismissed.

M/s Madhumalati Merchandise pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 5. The second ground is on the addition made u/s 2(22)e the Ld. CIT(A) held that Section 2(22)(e) is not attracted as the assessee is not registered shareholder and hence the addition is bad in law. This proposition is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhu Housing and Development Company judgment dated 20.10.2017. Hence, this ground of the revenue is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 28.12.2017 Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 28.12.2017 SB, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. ITO, Wd-4(2) Kolkata, 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69.

2. M/s Madhumalati Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., 19, K.C.Road, Kolkata-700002 3..C.I.T.(A)- , Kolkata 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.

5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →