INDSEC SECURITIES & FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 805/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2016AY 2011-123 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 Assessing Officer should examine the assessee's workings first before resorting to Rule 8D. Given that no new investments were made and dividend was directly credited to the bank, the assessee's disallowance was deemed reasonable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a share broker, earned dividend income and disallowed a certain amount under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's disallowance and computed a higher disallowance as per Rule 8D, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's disallowance under Section 14A and applying Rule 8D without proper examination of the assessee's accounts and activities. Whether the disallowance made under normal provisions should be adopted for book profit computation under Section 115JB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. Sheth
For Respondent: Shri Ajay
Hearing: 11.7.2016Pronounced: 11.7.2016

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 3.11.2014 passed by learned CIT(A)-8, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A of the Act and also adding the same to the book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act.

3.

I have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a share broker and a corporate member of BSE and NSE etc. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income of ` 4,43,200/- and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee disallowed a sum of ` 2,68,585/- u/s. 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that the disallowance was not in accordance with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules and accordingly computed the disallowance at ` 11,71,957/- u/r. 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules. Accordingly he made an addition of Rs.9,03,372/-, being the difference between the amount

2 M/s. Indsec Securities & Finance Ltd. computed by him and the disallowance made by the assessee. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not made any fresh investment during the year under consideration and all the investments have been brought forward from the earlier years. Inviting our attention to page No. 4 of the assessment order, he submitted that the investments have been held by the assessee for a period ranging from 748 days to 3656 days. He submitted that the assessee has received dividend income of ` 4,43,200/- only and the same has also been directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that the disallowance of ` 2,68,585/- made by the assessee is quite reasonable and accordingly prayed that the addition confirmed by learned CIT(A) be deleted.

5.

On the contrary learned Departmental Representative submitted that the working given by the assessee has been specifically rejected by the Assessing Officer and hence he was justified in computing the disallowance as per Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules.

6.

Having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee. As per provisions of section 14A of the Act, the workings made by the assessee should be examined by the Assessing Officer having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Only if he is not satisfied with the workings by having regard to the accounts, he may resort to compute the disallowance as per Rule 8D. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not made any new investment or sold any existing investment during the year under consideration. All the investments have been held by the assessee for quite a long time. So, the only activity with regard to the investment was receipt of dividend income and the same has also been directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. Under these set of facts, I am of the view that the disallowance of ` 2,68,585/- made by the 3 M/s. Indsec Securities & Finance Ltd.

assessee is quite reasonable having regard to the investments activity as well as accounts of the assessee. Accordingly, I set aside the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the above said amount.

7.

Learned AR fairly agreed that the disallowance made under normal provisions of the Act may be adopted for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the amount of disallowance under normal provisions of the Act for the purpose of computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 11.7.2016

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →