DURGERSHI ARJAN MAROO,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1086/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2016AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest as the assessee had agreed to it before the AO. For Section 14A, the disallowance was set aside and restored to the AO for recalculation as Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year. The rejection of loss set off was also set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT concerned disallowance of interest, disallowance under Section 14A, and rejection of set off of losses. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Applicability of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance and the AO's reasoning for rejecting set off of losses.

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(1)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, “D” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Pawan Singh (JM)

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Hearing: 25.7.2016Pronounced: 25.7.2016

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by learned CIT(A)-19, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2007- 08.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision rendered by learned CIT(A) on following issues:- a) Disallowance of interest of ` 3,42,000/- b) Disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act c) Rejection of claim of set off of loss

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

4.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The first issue relates to disallowance of interest expenditure of `

2 Shri Durgershi Arjan Maroo 3,42,000/-. We noticed that the assessee had agreed for this addition before the AO and the submission of the assessee is extracted in page No. 2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming this addition.

5.

Next issue relates to disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act. We noticed that the disallowance has been worked out as per Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, which is not held to be applicable for A.Y. 2007-08 by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81). Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to work out the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act on reasonable basis.

6.

Next issue relates to rejection of claim of set off of loss from other sources against salary income. We noticed that the Assessing Officer has not given any reason for rejecting claim of the assessee and hence we are of the view that this issue also requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer on this issue.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 25.7.2016

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →