9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 896 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A of the Act Held that - The AO has applied Rule 8D for working out the disallowance u/s 14A - The CIT(Appeals) has confirmed disallowance even though he agreed that Rule 8D cannot be held to be applicable in the Assessment Year 2006-07 but he confirmed the disallowance on the ground that it is quite reasonable - The assessee has worked out the disallowance as per working given before the Assessing Officer, which has been incorporated - Such a working has not been commented upon either by the CIT(Appeals) or by the Assessing Officer - No specific, extra expenditure has been pointed out The decision in JM FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD Versus ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. MUMBAI 2013 (8) TMI 821 - ITAT MUMBAI followed - disallowance of 5% of the dividend income would be quite reasonable for working out the disallowance u/s 14A - following the same principle in this year also, 5% of the dividend income would be reasonable for making the disallowance u/s 14A - the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance at 5% of the dividend income Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
Issues: Disallowance of expenses under section 14A
Analysis: The appeal was against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) for the assessment year 2006-07, specifically challenging the disallowance of Rs. 24,62,494 under section 14A. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had earned dividend income of Rs. 1,27,88,488. The assessee's submissions regarding the allocation of expenses related to earning dividend income were considered. The Assessing Officer calculated the disallowance based on a percentage of average investment and indirect interest expenses, resulting in the total disallowance amount. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, citing Rule 8D as a reasonable basis for such disallowances. The appellant argued that Rule 8D should not apply for the assessment year 2006-07, referring to a Bombay High Court decision. Additionally, it was contended that the appellant had sufficient own funds for investments and no specific expenditure was identified for earning dividend income. The appellant sought the deletion of additional disallowances. The Departmental Representative supported the CIT(Appeals)'s findings. The Tribunal observed that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question, yet the disallowance was upheld by the CIT(Appeals) as reasonable. The Tribunal noted the appellant's working of the disallowance, which had not been challenged by the authorities. Referring to a previous year's decision, the Tribunal determined that a 5% disallowance of dividend income would be reasonable under section 14A. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the dividend income, partially allowing the appellant's grounds. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the disallowance under section 14A being restricted to 5% of the dividend income, based on the Tribunal's determination of reasonableness in line with previous decisions.
|
