2016 (3) TMI 1389 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - whether the AO is allowed to disallow the expenditure, which is debited to the P L Account? - assessee submitted that the disallowance made by the AO has far exceeded the total claim of expenditure in the P L Account - HELD THAT - As relying on assessee's own case 2014 (1) TMI 1183 - ITAT MUMBAI we agree with the Ld Counsel s argument and remand the matter to the file of the AO. We direct the AO to apply the said ratio to the facts of the present case and other decisions, if any, in force and decided the issue in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved two cross-appeals related to the assessment year 2011-2012 against the order of the CIT (A)-4, Mumbai. The key issue in both appeals was the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The counsel for the assessee argued that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer exceeded the total claim of expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal order in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-2009, where relief was granted based on certain arguments. The counsel suggested that the issue be remanded to the AO for consideration in light of the previous Tribunal order and other relevant judgments.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal found the para 5 of the Tribunal's order in the assessee's previous case for AY 2008-2009 to be relevant. This para outlined the reasonable allocation of expenditure attributable to taxable income, specifically bank interest income versus dividend income. The Tribunal agreed with the counsel's argument and decided to remand the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to apply the ratio from the previous Tribunal order to the current case, along with any other applicable decisions, and decide the issue in accordance with the law. The AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard as per the principles of natural justice. Consequently, all grounds raised in both cross-appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and both appeals were allowed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai's judgment focused on the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act in two cross-appeals for the assessment year 2011-2012. The decision highlighted the importance of considering previous Tribunal orders and relevant judgments in determining the allocation of expenditure for disallowance purposes. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further consideration and decision in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard.