CHENNAI PORT TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1143/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 November 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of investment expenses is not warranted if the investments are made in sister concerns, associate concerns, or companies owned by the Government. This decision was based on a prior ruling for the assessment year 2011-12.

What were the facts?

The assessee made investments in Ennore Port Limited, Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd., and Chennai Ennore Port Road Company Ltd. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses by invoking Rule 8D.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of investment expenses is justified when investments are made in government-owned entities or associate concerns.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 8D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Hearing: 13.10.2016Pronounced: 25.11.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT (A) -13, Chennai dated 28.01.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

Shri K.Meenatchi Sundaram, the learned representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee made investment in Ennore Port Limited, Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd. and Chennai Ennore Port Road Company Ltd. The assessing officer disallowed the expenditure by following the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. An identical investment was made in the very same case for the assessment year 2011-12 and this Tribunal by an order dated 22.07.2016 found that the investment need not be disallowed subject to verification that all such investments are made in sister concerns / associate concerns / companies owned by the Government. Therefore, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12.

3.

We heard Shri Supriyo Pal, the learned department representative also. The learned department representative very fairly submitted that the issue is covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12. We have considered the submissions of the representative of the assessee and revenue and also carefully gone through the material available on record.

As rightly submitted by the learned department representative and the learned representative for the assessee, an identical investment was made by the assessee in the very same three companies. This Tribunal by referring to its earlier order dated 22.07.2016, found that the investment was made in sister concerns / associate concerns / companies owned by the Government, there cannot be any disallowance. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee subject to verification. By following the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that subject to verification that the investment was made in sister concerns / associate concerns / companies owned by the Government, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 25th November, 2016 at Chennai.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →