9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act and application of Rule 8D, Disallowance u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act for unpaid bonus.
Dispute related to disallowance u/s 14A: The dispute in the departmental appeal and the assessee's cross objection pertains to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, with the Assessing Officer applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The CIT (Appeals) noted that the provisions of Rule 8D were to be retrospectively applied as per the decision in the case of Daga Capital Management by the Special Bench, ITAT, Mumbai. The AO's rejection of the appellant's explanation and computation of disallowance under Rule 8D indicated his dissatisfaction with the claim of expenditure relatable to exempt income. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance as per Rule 8D, emphasizing the need for proper computation. The AR's contention that Rule 8D should only apply to the treasury division for computation was accepted, resulting in a reduced disallowance amount. The Bombay High Court's decision clarified that Rule 8D is not retrospective and directed the AO to frame disallowance u/s 14A accordingly. Dispute related to disallowance u/s 43B: The AO disallowed &8377; 4,49,365 under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act for unpaid bonus based on tax audit reports. However, certificates from different Chartered Accountants indicated that the bonuses were paid on specific dates. The CIT (Appeals) considered the payment certificates and deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal directed the assessee to provide actual proof of payment to the AO for verification and decision in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The Tribunal pronounced the decision on 08.10.2010, allowing the assessee's cross objection and partly allowing the revenue's appeal concerning the disallowances u/s 14A and u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act.
|
