SHRIRAM HOUSING FIANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2748/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2017AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's disallowance of only salary expenses was insufficient, as other overheads also needed to be considered. Complete details of salary expenditure for personnel involved in managing mutual funds were not disclosed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a housing finance company, claimed a disallowance of Rs.1,29,231/- for expenses attributable to earning exempt income. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs.6,59,062/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, and the CIT(A) confirmed this.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance made by the assessee under Section 14A was sufficient, or if the disallowance computed by the AO under Rule 8D was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Hearing: 04.05.2017

: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate अपीलाथ�क�ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT ��यथ�क�ओरसे/Respondent by : 13.04.2017 सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of hearing : 04.05.2017 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-

15, Chennai dated 19.07.2016 in for the assessment year 2013-14 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the rules and thereby disallowed the expenditure of Rs.5,29,831/-.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of housing finance, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 27.09.2013. The case was selected up for scrutiny under CASS and finally orders U/s. 143(3) was passed on 25.03.2016 wherein the Ld.AO invoked the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D (i, ii, & iii) and thereby disallowed Rs.6,59,062/- after rejecting the claim of the assessee that it had only incurred expenditure of only Rs.1,29,231/- which is attributable for earning exempt income as detailed herein below:-

Particulars Amount Gross Salary 79,520 Bonus 700 Salary per month 820,220 Salary per annum 962,640 Salary per day 2,637 No. of days 49 Total disallowance amount (2637*49) 1,29,231 Accordingly the Ld.A.O made addition of Rs. Rs.5,29,839/- in the case of the assessee.

4.

On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the Ld.AO had given detailed reasons for making disallowance U/s.14A read with Rule 8D and therefore he confirmed the addition of Rs.5,29,839/- made by him .

5.

Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had itself disallowed expenses that is attributable for earning exempt income for Rs.1,29,231/- and the details for the same was also furnished. Therefore further addition of Rs.5,29,839/- is not warranted. Hence it was pleaded that the same may be deleted.

6.

On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had made investments to the extent of Rs.3,34,49,076/- for earning dividend income which is exempted from tax. Hence it was argued that the Ld.AO had rightly worked out the disallowance which is in accordance with Rule 8D of the Rules. It was therefore requested that the order of the Ld.AO may be confirmed.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. Though the assessee had furnished details of certain salary expenses that is attributable for earning exempt income for making disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act, such disallowance alone will not suffice because allocation of other overheads which is attributable for earning exempt income has also to be taken into consideration for disallowance U/s.14A of the 4 Act. Further the complete details of the salary expenditure with respect to all the personnel involved in the decision making process for managing the mutual funds of the assessee is also not disclosed by the assessee. Therefore the claim of the assessee that it had only incurred Rs.1,29,231/- which is attributable for earning exempt income is not acceptable. Hence the Ld.AO has rightly computed the disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D of the rules which has been upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). For the above stated reasons, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) with this issue.

8.

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the court on the 04th May, 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 →