9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1390 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance to be made under section 14A and then computing the deduction under section 80 P(2)(d) - Held that - It is clear that the court has passed an order in lemine and dismissed the SLP which cannot lead to the conclusion that this order has merged with the order of Delhi High Court. Therefore when an order of the Jurisdictional High Court is available in the case of assessee we have no option but to follow the same. Therefore following the order of the Hon ble High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS KRIBHCO 2012 (7) TMI 591 - DELHI HIGH COURT and we decide this issue against the assessee. It was also contended that in any case Rule 8D has become applicable from assessment year 2008-09 and therefore for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D read with section 14-A disallowance should be calculated as per this Rule. We find merit in this contention and therefore set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO for re-computing the disallowance U/s 14-A read with Rule 8P(2)(d).
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and justice of the Assessing Officer's order as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). 2. Applicability of Section 14A to income entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for a cooperative society. 3. Attribution of Rs. 60,58,021/- as expenses to income entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). 4. Attribution of total expenses of the head office to the earning of interest income. 5. Attribution of expenses to the earning of interest income as per the provisions of Section 57(iii). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Justice of the Assessing Officer's Order: The assessee contested that the order of the Assessing Officer, upheld by the CIT(A), was "bad in law and beyond all the cannons of law and justice." However, this was a general ground without specific arguments presented during the hearing. 2. Applicability of Section 14A to Income Entitled to Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d): The assessee argued that the provisions of Section 14A should not apply to income entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) held the contrary view, relying on earlier Tribunal decisions against the assessee for previous assessment years, confirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The assessee cited the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kribhco, which was in favor of the assessee and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP. The Tribunal, however, noted that the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court does not result in the merger of the High Court's order with that of the Supreme Court, thus the earlier decision of the jurisdictional High Court had to be followed. 3. Attribution of Rs. 60,58,021/- as Expenses to Income Entitled to Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d): The assessee challenged the attribution of Rs. 60,58,021/- as expenses to the income entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer had recomputed these expenses based on earlier years' decisions, which were upheld by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court. The Tribunal reaffirmed the attribution, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. 4. Attribution of Total Expenses of the Head Office to the Earning of Interest Income: The assessee contended that attributing total head office expenses to the earning of interest income was incorrect. The Tribunal upheld the attribution, relying on the earlier decisions that were confirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. 5. Attribution of Expenses to the Earning of Interest Income as per Section 57(iii): The assessee argued that the attribution of expenses to the earning of interest income under Section 57(iii) was against judicial decisions. The Tribunal, however, upheld the attribution, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Additional Consideration: The Tribunal addressed the applicability of Rule 8D for computing disallowance under Section 14A, stating that Rule 8D became applicable from the assessment year 2008-09. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-computing the disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, rejecting the assessee's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Kribhco, as the SLP dismissal did not result in the merger of the orders. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 12/01/2015.
|
