KORN FERRY INTERNAIOTNAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1117/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 January 2017AY 2009-102 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction and obtain the assessee's explanation before invoking Section 14A. Since the facts were identical to previous years where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, the appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee earned dividend income which was exempt, but did not disallow any relatable expenses. The AO disallowed a portion of expenses under Section 14A, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether expenses relatable to exempt income can be disallowed under Section 14A without establishing a nexus and obtaining the assessee's explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri. M.D. Thakore, AR, Shri. B.S. Bist, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM (A.Y:2009-10) Korn Ferry International P Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Piramal Tower, 02nd Floor, 3(2), Mumbai Vs. Peninsula Corporate Park, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 PAN No.AAACW0577B .. Appellant Respondent Assessee by .. Shri. M.D. Thakore, AR .. Shri. B.S. Bist, DR Revenue by Date of hearing .. 10-01-2017 .. Date of pronouncement 10-01-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-4, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-4/IT-68/DCIT3(2)/2011-12 dated 08-10-2012. The Assessment was framed by DCIT Circle-3(2), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 15-12-2011 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the expenses relatable to exempted income by invoking the provision of Section 14A of the Act r. w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (herein after ‘the rules’).

3.

Briefly stated facts are that the AO noticed that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.27,17,521/- and claim the same as exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act. But has not disallowed any relatable expense to this dividend income. Hence, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.5,89,333/- being half percent of the average value of investment by invoking the provision of Section 14A r. w. R 8D of the Rules. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO on identical reasoning.

4.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed tribunals order in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in dated 31-03-2016, for A.Y. 2010- 11 in ITA No.6269/Mum/2013 dated 22-04-2016 and for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No.7367/Mum/2014 dated 27-07-2016. We have gone through the Tribunals order in A.Y. 2008-09, wherein Tribunal has recorded the following finding in Para 5: -

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had not mentioned as to how much expenditure was incurred by the assessee for earning tax free income. We are of the opinion that, if the assessee had not incurred any expenditure to earn tax free income. then. the AO cannot invoke the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. First of all, the AO has to record his satisfaction about invoking the provisions and has to decide the issue after obtaining the explanation of the assessee We also do not endorse the view of the FAA that investment out of the own funds has no relevance for making the disallowance. We find that in the case of Om Prakasli Khaitan(supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that in order to disallow the expenditure there must be a nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income not forming the part of the total income. Considering the above, we reverse the order of the FAA. Ground No.] is decided in favour of the assessee.

5.

We confronted the learned Sr. DR he could not point out any factual difference in this year as compared to the A.Y. 2008-09. As the facts are identical and investment is same, respectfully following co-ordinate Bench decision in assessee’s own case for earlier years, we allow the appeal of the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10-01-2017.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →