9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 479 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance - Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 read with sec. 14A - the assesseehas been pointed out that he has already disallowed the sum of Rs.15,26,645/- being proportionate expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning exempted income and therefore, no further disallowance is called for - In order to examine as to whether a disallowance of Rs.15,26,645/- voluntarily disallowed by the assessee itself in the return of income filed by it, is justified or proper, restore the matter back to the file of the AO for his fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee - Be it stated here that the AO shall not apply the provision of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules to the present case, which is related to Assessment Year 2006-07 in which Rule 8D is not applicable - Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Disallowance of expenses under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules for Assessment Year 2006-07. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order confirming the disallowance of Rs.28,37,906 made by the Assessing Officer under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 read with sec. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was based on half per cent of the average investment as on April 1, 2005. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision citing the Special Bench's ruling in ITO vs. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 26 SOT 603 (Mumbai)(SB). The assessee contended that the decision of the Special Bench holding Rule 8D to be retrospective was overruled by the Bombay High Court in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010), stating that Rule 8D is applicable only from the Assessment Year 2008-09. Therefore, Rule 8D should not be applied to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed Rs.15,26,645 in the return of income, arguing that no further disallowance was necessary. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication without applying Rule 8D, as it was not applicable for the year in question. The Tribunal held that the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced immediately after the hearing on 29.11.2010.
|
