DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ENNORE TANK TERMINALS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1047/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 September 20174 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 upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), confirming that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempted income earned by the assessee. This decision was based on various High Court judgments and prior Tribunal orders.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, calculating a disallowance of Rs. 54,10,192. The CIT(Appeals) restricted this disallowance to the extent of the exempted income earned by the assessee, which was Rs. 13,62,200.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A should be limited to the amount of exempted income earned, or if it can exceed this amount as per Rule 8D.

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(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, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CA
Hearing: 14.09.2017Pronounced: 18.09.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 9, Chennai, dated 12.01.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

Shri Asish Tripathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee has earned `13,62,200/- which was exempted from taxation. According to the Ld. D.R., while referring to Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not incurred any direct expenditure. The Assessing Officer has also found that the assessee has invested `5,50,48,412/-, 0.5% of the same comes to `2,75,242/- as per limb (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. According to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer computed the interest at `51,34,950/-. The total disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is `54,10,192/-. Even though the CIT(Appeals) has not found any error in the computation of disallowance under Rule 8D, according to the Ld. D.R., he directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of the income earned, i.e. `13,62,200/-.

Placing reliance on the CBDT circular in Circular No.21/2015, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the disallowance has to be made under Rule 8D(2) of Income-tax Rules, 1962, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in restricting the disallowance to the extent of the exempted income earned by the assessee.

3.

On the contrary, Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in Southern Petrochemical Industries v. DCIT (993 TTJ 161), the judgment of Delhi High Court in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 and the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Empire Package Pvt. Ltd. in of 2015 dated 12.01.2016, found that the disallowance has to be restricted to the extent of exempted income earned by the assessee.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance by applying Rule 8D(2) of Income-tax Rules, 1962 at `54,10,192/-. The CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of Delhi High Court in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Empire Package Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the order of this Tribunal in Ambattur Clothing Ltd. in dated 28.12.2015, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempted income earned by the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 18th September, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →