ADHIVITIYA PROPERTIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT-53, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3063/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 September 2016AY 2010-113 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The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning disallowances under Section 14A. The assessee later requested to withdraw the appeal as the grounds raised were not sustainable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A. The assessee ultimately chose not to pursue the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI ANADI NATH MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma

Instant appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th January 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–53, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010–11.

Effective grounds raised by the Department are as under:–

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) 53 has erred in confirming the following disallowances: a. Disallowance under rule 8D(2)(i) of Rs. 33,93,833/- (Rs. 56,82,506/- (disallowance calculated by Ld. CIT(A) Less Rs.

2 Adhivitiya Properties Ltd.

22,88,673/- disallowance already offered by the appellant) u/s 14A of the Act. a. Disallowance of 50% of administrative expenses u/s rule 8D(2) (iii) amounting to Rs. 37,704/- u/s 14A of the Act. b. Disallowance of differential interest of 3% between interest paid of 15 % to Ackruti City Limited and interest received of 12% from Gandhi Adhivitiya, a firm in which the Appellant is a partner.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) had also grossly erred in stepping into the shoes of the LAO for making the calculation of disallowance u/s 14A after finding merit in the plea of the appellant that the LAO had not given any cogent reason for rejecting the working of the suo-moto disallowance offered by the Appellant. Appellant pleads that the act of the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and void ab-initio.”

2.

When the case was called for hearing, neither the assessee nor any of its authorised representatives appeared before us for prosecuting the present appeal. However, on a perusal of the record available before us, we find that assessee, by way of a letter dated 14th September 2016, prayed for withdrawal of appeal for the reason that the grounds raised are not sustainable. The learned Departmental Representative has not opposed to the contents of the said letter withdrawing the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we treat this appeal as withdrawn.

3.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.09.2016

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →