INNOVATIVE B2B LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4997/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 October 2023AY 2015-16Bench: the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) granted relief by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the Section 14A disallowance, finding it covered by High Court precedents and the assessee's own case. For the interest disallowance issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 2,65,12,507/- under Section 14A for investments made by the assessee, stating that no exempt income was earned. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, relying on High Court decisions. The Revenue appealed this deletion.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no exempt income is earned from investments. The second issue concerns the disallowance of interest expenses.

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(2)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, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate, Shri Akshay Uppal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.10.2023

Date of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date of Order : 12.10.2023

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-35, New Delhi dated 26.04.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, in this case, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the issue involved in both the appeals is duly covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 order dated 14.07.2023.

3.

In this background, we have heard both the parties and perused the records.

4.

The first issue raised by the Revenue is that ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,65,12,507/- made by the AO under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

5.

Brief facts of the issue are that AO noted from the balance sheet that the assessee had made investment of Rs.2,65,12,507/- in the shares of M/s. Noble Tradecon Private Limited and M/s. B2B Forwarding Agent Ltd. AO noted that assessee has not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee was asked to explain and the assessee stated that it has not received any exempt income during the year. But the AO did not accept the plea and made the disallowance.

5. Against this order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) granted relief by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble (Delhi) and CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi)

6.

Against this order, Revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

7.

Upon careful consideration, we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as referred above. Moreover, the same decisions have been followed by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 (supra).

Accordingly, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.

8.

Another issue raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT (A) erred in applying percentage of 6% against 12% applied by the AO in respect of disallowance of interest. On the same issue, assessee is also aggrieved that the ld. CIT (A) has reduced the percentage to 6% whereas the assessee has given interest free loan to subsidiary company and the assessee is in possession of substantial own funds and interest free unsecured loan.

9.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The facts of the case are that somewhat similar issue is decided by the ITAT in the assessee’s own case in AY 2014-15 (supra). ITAT in assessee’s own case in AY 2014-15 on finding that assessee owned interest free funds were more than the interest free loan, has granted the complete relief to the Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of AO. AO shall decide the issue afresh and if the interest free funds are more than the investment done, then no disallowance is to be made in line with the order of the ITAT as above.

10.

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2023.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →