M/S.COMBINED FOODS P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Combined Foods Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax, Kochi-1. 28/3030, Elamkulam, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9366N] Assessee-Appellant Revenue-Respondent

Disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A A read_with Rule 8D In the assessment order passed AO had omitted to examine the applicability of section 14A r.w. rule 8D in respect of dividend income from investments in equity shares. In response to the show cause notice on this issue, assessee contends that no borrowed funds were utilized for investment for earning

M/S.ACUMEN CAPITAL MARKET(INDIA) LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Acumen Capital Marketing (I) Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer 3Rd Floor St Reddiar & /Sons Bldg Ward 1(1), Kochi Veekshanam /Road Ernakulam ( Appellant) (Respondent)

5 of Section 43 it has been provided that trading in derivative carried out in the recognized stock exchange should not be considered asspeculative business. 3 Brief stated the facts of the case are as follows: 2 The assessee is a company engaged in the business of online share trading. For the assessment year 2012-13, the return of income

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

5 is allowed in favour of the Appellant.” 12. Suffice to say, it is very much evident that the Revenue’s endeavour herein is to revive the proportionate interest expenditure disallowance in assessee’s case relating to it’s exempt income. As against this, learned CIT(A) has recorded a categoric finding that the assessee had nowhere utilized

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

5 is allowed in favour of the Appellant.” 12. Suffice to say, it is very much evident that the Revenue’s endeavour herein is to revive the proportionate interest expenditure disallowance in assessee’s case relating to it’s exempt income. As against this, learned CIT(A) has recorded a categoric finding that the assessee had nowhere utilized

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

5 is allowed in favour of the Appellant.” 12. Suffice to say, it is very much evident that the Revenue’s endeavour herein is to revive the proportionate interest expenditure disallowance in assessee’s case relating to it’s exempt income. As against this, learned CIT(A) has recorded a categoric finding that the assessee had nowhere utilized

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

5 is allowed in favour of the Appellant.” 12. Suffice to say, it is very much evident that the Revenue’s endeavour herein is to revive the proportionate interest expenditure disallowance in assessee’s case relating to it’s exempt income. As against this, learned CIT(A) has recorded a categoric finding that the assessee had nowhere utilized

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and making disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and making disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and making disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and making disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 43(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. That means the question is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference cases are disposed of as above." 7.1 Accordingly, in view of the above judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Poulose

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

43-B of the Income Tax Act,1961 has held that the new proviso to Section 43B should be given retrospective effect from the inception on the ground that the proviso was added to remedy unintended consequences and supply an obvious omission. The proviso ensured reasonable interpretation and retrospective effect would serve the object behind the enactment. The aforesaid view