WINDIA INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5417/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2016AY 2012-133 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 erred by not excluding investments held as stock-in-trade, in subsidiary/group companies, and those not earning exempt income when computing the disallowance under Section 14A.

What were the facts?

The assessee received tax-free dividend income and the AO made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee argued that investments held as stock-in-trade, in subsidiary/group companies, or those not earning exempt income should be excluded.

What were the issues?

Whether investments held as stock-in-trade, in subsidiary/group companies, or those not earning exempt income should be excluded from the disallowance computation under Section 14A.

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(4)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 R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 21/09/2016Pronounced: 23/09/2016

O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012-2013.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee relates to disallowance made u/s.14A of the I.T.Act.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in borrowing and lending and investment in securities. During the year assessee has received tax free dividend income of Rs.70,87,815/-. The AO computed disallowance u/s.14A read with rule 8D at Rs.46,81,151/- under rule 8D(iii). It was contended by ld. AR that disallowance has also been made in respect of 2 shares held as stock in trade as well as investment in subsidiary/group companies. As per ld. AR shares held as stock in trade should be excluded for the purpose of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. For this purpose reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements :- i)CIT vs. India Advantage Securities, ITA No.1131/2013, dated 17.3.2015 (Bombay High Court); ii)CCI Ltd. Vs. Jt.CIT, 250 CTR 291 (Kar) iii)HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom) In support of the proposition that no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted in respect of investment in the subsidiary/group companies, reliance was placed on the following decisions :- i)Cheminvest Ltd. v CIT [378 ITR 33 (Del)/ 281 CTR 447 (Del)] ii) Garware Wall Ropes Limited v Addl. CIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012) iii)M/s JM Financial Limited v Add!. CIT (ITA No: 4521/Mum/2012) iv)CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) v)M/s Provogue India Ltd v. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai being ITA No: 2155/Mum/2013 for AY. 2009-10 dated 21.01.2015; It was also contended by ld. AR that no disallowance u/s.14A was warranted in respect of investment, which does not earn any exempt income and for this purpose reliance was placed on the following decisions :- i)ACB India v ACIT [374 ITR 108 (Del)] ii)CIT v. Interglobe Enterprises Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (copy enclosed) M/s Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v Dy.CIT being ITA No: 8581/Mum/2011 for AY. 2008-09 dated 24.02.2016 4. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that while computing disallowance under rule 8D(iii), the AO has not excluded investment in shares held as stock in trade, investment in subsidiary/group concerns. The AO has also not excluded the investment which do not earn any tax free income.

5.

In view of the above judicial pronouncements as referred above, we direct the AO to exclude investment made in shares held as stock in trade, investment in subsidiary/group companies and also investment which do not earn any exempt income. We direct accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23/09/ 2016.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →