9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1752 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s. 14A - Tribunal restored back the issue of disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration - Held that - the impugned order of the Tribunal has restored both the issue to the Assessing Officer i.e. with regard to the applicability of Section 14A of the Act with a direction that in case the RespondentAssessee fails to satisfy the Assessing Officer of utilization of its own funds and/or interest free funds for the purpose of making investment in the light of the order in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY), then in that event, the disallowance be determined under Section 14A of the Act. This, undoubtedly would be on an application of a reasonable method as held by this Court in Godrej & Boyce (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Thus, we are at a loss to understand the grievance of the revenue. No substantial question of law. - Decided against revenue.
Issues involved:
Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. Analysis: The primary issue in this case was the dispute over the disallowance of interest and other expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act in relation to the dividend income earned by the Respondent-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2001-02. The Respondent argued that no expenses were incurred to earn the dividend income, citing the decision in CIT v/s. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. The Tribunal's order sent the issue back to the Assessing Officer to consider the Respondent's contention, and if the Reliance Utilities case did not apply, then the disallowance had to be done reasonably, following the decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s. DCIT. The Tribunal's order essentially directed the Assessing Officer to determine the applicability of the Reliance Utilities case and, if necessary, proceed with the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The Revenue's grievance was that the Tribunal's order had prematurely closed the issue of the application of Section 14A of the Act by sending it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. However, the Tribunal clarified in its order that it was sending the issue back to the Assessing Officer to examine the availability of interest-free funds and the assessee's own funds for making investments. If borrowed funds were used for investments, then the disallowance could be made on the interest payable on those borrowed funds. The Tribunal's order clearly outlined the steps the Assessing Officer needed to take in assessing the issue, ensuring a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, dismissing the appeal from the Revenue. The Court found that the Tribunal had appropriately directed the Assessing Officer to consider all relevant aspects, including the applicability of Section 14A of the Act and the method of disallowance if necessary. The Court concluded that the questions raised did not present any substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no costs awarded.
|
