M/S. PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 704/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 July 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt income.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a disallowance of Rs. 8,86,849/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer made this disallowance, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 1,49,789/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A can exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 02.06.2016Pronounced: 01.07.2016

ORDER PER C.M.Garg, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee has been filed agaisnt the order of the CIT(A) dated 12.11.2013 passed in first appeal No. 363/11-12 for AY 2009-10. The sole ground raised by the assessee reads as follows :

2 Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. “The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 8,86,849/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D ignoring the facts and submissions placed on record. Thus, the disallowance so made should be deleted.”

2.

We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant materials placed on the record of the Tribunal. At the very outset, the Ld. AR placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 372 ITR 695 (Del) contended that the disallowance in any case can not be made more than exempt income. The ld. AR pointed out that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 1,49,789/- whereas the AO disallowed amount of Rs. 8,86,849/- which is not a proper and justified approach of the AO.

3.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly supported the action of the AO as well as impugned order of CIT(A). However, we fairly accepted that as per ratio of the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) the disallowance can not be made beyond actual exempt income. The Ld. DR also did not express any serious objection to the contention of Ld. AR that the disallowance may be restricted to exempt income.

4.

On carefuly consideration above submissions of both the sides and keeping in view the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional

3 Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd.

High Court in the case of Joint Investment (supra). We are of the considered opinion that disallowance cannot be made more that exempt income which is Rs. 1,49,789/- for AY 2009-10 thus disallowance is restricted to exempt income.

5.

Consequently, sole ground of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order Pronounced in the Court on 01/07/2016.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →