DCIT CEN CIR 1 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs. D.B. REALTY P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7048/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which reduced the disallowance under Section 14A to 5% of fixed/semi-variable expenditure, following a previous decision for AY 2009-10.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee's appeal for one assessment year was withdrawn. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance based on the nature of investments.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantum of disallowance under Section 14A, specifically how to compute it when investments were strategic.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Sandeep Gosain (JM)

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji
For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar
Hearing: 20.2.2017Pronounced: 20.2.2017

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 7048/Mum/2014
I.T.A. No. 4467/Mum/2015
I.T.A. No. 4396/Mum/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 and cross appeals filed by the parties for A.Y. 2011-12 are directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A)-36, Mumbai.

2 M/s. D.B. Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Now DB Realty Ltd.) 2. At the time of hearing learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Accordingly, the said appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

Solitary issue urged in the appeal filed by the Revenue relates to disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance in both the years u/r. 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules at 0.5% of average value of investment. The learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has made major portion of investments only in subsidiary companies, associates concerns and partnership firms, in which the assessee is a partner. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) took the view that investments made by the assessee are in the form of strategic investments and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance at 5% of the fixed/semi variable expenditure incurred by the assessee.

4.

At the time of hearing learned counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer had made identical disallowance in A.Y. 2009-10 also, which was reduced to 5% of the fixed/semi variable expenses by the order passed by the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the Revenue took the matter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 19.11.2014 passed in relating to A.Y. 2009-10, has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has followed its own order passed in A.Y. 2009-10 in the years under consideration also.

5.

Learned Departmental Representative did not controvert the factual aspects presented by learned AR.

6.

In view of the above, consistent with the view taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, we confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in the years under consideration also.

3 M/s. D.B. Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Now DB Realty Ltd.) 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 20.2.2017.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →