HEENA PARAG CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A) 33, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5561/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2016AY 2010-114 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not wish to press it. This was based on a statement made by the assessee's representative that the Assessing Officer had granted relief while giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer had made significant additions to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, particularly concerning the nexus between expenditure and exempt income, and the AO's satisfaction for applying Rule 8D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi
Hearing: 22.09.2016Pronounced: 26.10.2016

Assessee by: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department by: Capt. Pradeep S. Arya सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing: 22.09.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 26.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 33, A.Y. 2010-11 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- a. The learned CIT(A) erred in partially confirming the adhoc disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D, although no expenses have been incurred on earning tax free income. The learned AO failed to establish any nexus between the expenditure incurred the exempt income earned. b. The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration, that as per section 14A(2), the AO cannot ipso facto apply Rule 8D but can do so only where he records satisfaction on an objective basis that the assessee is unable to establish the correctness of its claim. c. Computation under Rule 8D : Without prejudice the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii), although the interest expenditure has direct nexus with the capital introduced in the partnership Firm, and therefore is outside the scope of Rule 8D2(ii).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring the income to the tune of Rs.4,31,351/- The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.47,05,530/- vide order dated 21.03.2013. The assessee did not accept the said assessment order and filed an appeal on 19.04.2013 with CIT(A)-33, Mumbai who decided the appeal by virtue of order dated 29.10.2015. However the assessee was not satisfied on account of addition u/s.14A r.w.r.8D of the Income 2 A.Y. 2010-11 Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”). Therefore the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perused the record. At the very outset the representative of the assessee has made the statement before the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee officer has granted the relief while giving the effect of CIT(A) order by virtue of order dated 14.01.2016. Therefore, the assessee did not want to press this appeal. In view of the said statement wherein the assessee only raised the point of addition on account of section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. The present appeal is hereby order to be to be dismissed being not pressed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby 5. Dismissed being not pressed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th October, 2016. (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated 26th October, 2016 MP MP MP MP

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →