PACE STOCKS AND SHARES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3400/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 April 2017AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the treatment of interest income was academic as it had the same tax effect regardless of the head. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's view that no disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income.

What were the facts?

The assessee treated interest income as business income, while the Assessing Officer considered it as income from other sources. The assessee also claimed no exempt income for the relevant year.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when there is no exempt income, and the tax treatment of interest income.

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(1)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, ‘D’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against an order dated 28.10.2016 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai.

Assessee has taken altogether six grounds. There are only 2. two issues arising out of these six grounds. First is on a disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D and second is with regard to treatment of interest income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that with regard to second issue viz treatment of interest income, ld. Assessing

ITA No.3400/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:

Officer had treated the interest under the head ‘’income from other sources’’ though assessee had considered it as ‘’business income’’. As

per ld. Authorised Representative assessee was in investment management business and hence interest income could only be considered as business income. Nevertheless according to him, interest income whether considered under the head ‘’business income’’ or ‘’income from other sources’’, will have the same tax effect for the assessee. Ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed that irrespective of the head under which interest income treated, tax on the assessee would be very same, since total income remained unchanged. Thus the tax effect being very same, the question of treatment of interest income becomes academic and relevant grounds are therefore dismissed as infructuous.

3.

This leaves us with the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was not having any exempt income during the relevant previous year. According to him, when there was no exempt income, Sec. 14A could not be applied.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 257.

Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 4.

supported the orders of the authorities below.

ITA No.3400/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:

5.

I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd (supra) has upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that there can be no disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D when there was no exempt income claimed by an assessee. Their Lordship also observed that for Sec. 14A of the Act could not be applied on notional or anticipatory income. In the case before me, ld. Assessing Officer himself has noted that assessee was not having exempt income. Therefore, in my opinion disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could not have been made. Disallowance of �9,48,778/- stands dismissed. Related grounds of the assessee are allowed.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →