SHANTIVIJAY JEWELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5215/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 January 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that overseas dividend income, being taxable in India, should not be considered for calculating average investment. It also found that the assessee's interest-free funds far exceeded its investments, making disallowance of interest expenditure unnecessary.

What were the facts?

The assessee received dividend income and made no disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,54,017 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that overseas investments should not be included and that its own funds exceeded investments, negating interest disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether overseas investments should be included in the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A, and whether disallowance of interest expenditure is warranted when interest-free funds exceed investments.

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, “E” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Shah
For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Hearing: 18.1.2017Pronounced: 18.1.2017

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

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by the learned CIT(A)-18, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

At the time of hearing, learned AR did not press ground No. 4 and hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. Remaining grounds relate to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A of the Act.

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the record. During the year under consideration the assessee received dividend income of ` 1,93,800/- and he did not make any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed disallowance by applying rule 8D of the I.T. Rules and made disallowance of ` 5,54,017/- u/s. 14A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that investment held by the assessee includes “Overseas investments, income from which is 2 M/s. Shantivijay Jewels Ltd.

taxable. Accordingly he submitted that the Assessing Officer was not right in law in including Overseas investments also for working out the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Learned AR further submitted that own funds held by the assessee is in far excess of the amount of Investments and hence disallowance of interest is not required to be made under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules in view of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505).

5.

On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

6.

Having heard the rival contentions, we find merit in the submissions made by learned AR. Since dividend earned from overseas investments is taxable in India, the same should not have been considered by the Assessing Officer for working out the average value of investment.

7.

We noticed from the Balance sheet filed by the assessee that the assessee is holding interest free funds of about ` 24 crores, while amount of Investments held by the assessee is only ` 2.97 cores. Hence, decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd.(supra), would apply to the facts of the present case and accordingly there is no requirement to make disallowance out of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules.

8.

In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to rework the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the IT rules in accordance with the discussions made supra.

3 M/s. Shantivijay Jewels Ltd.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.1.2017.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →