BHARAT TALAKSHI CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 23(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2894/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 April 2017AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the binding judgments of the jurisdictional High Court, decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to re-adjudicate the matter after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the disallowance of Rs. 11,06,409/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) made this disallowance from the total interest expenses claimed, ignoring the assessee's adequate own funds and the concept of presumption.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A was justified when the assessee had sufficient own funds and the AO failed to consider relevant judicial pronouncements.

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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkal Hariya
Hearing: 15.03.2017Pronounced: 07.04.2017

O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 28.04.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-7, Mumbai dated 15.01.2014 for the AY 2009-2010.

2.

The only issue raised in the grounds of appeal

relates to the disallowance of Rs. 11,06,409/- u/s 14A of the Act. AO considered the above for disallowance out of the total claim of interest expenses of R. 16,37,827/-. AO is said to have ignored the fact that the assessee has adequate own funds and also the concept of “presumption” laid down in various judicial pronouncements. On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the above stand of the AO.

3. Before us, at the outset, Ld AR for the assessee brought our attention to the binding judgment of the CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and also binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) and requested for directing the AO to apply the said ratios of the judgments.

4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material and the cited precedents of the High Court (supra), we of the considered opinion, the matter should be remanded to the file of the AO for adjudicating the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly we order. Thus, the grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th April, 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 →