9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1669 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Tribunal justification in reading the word net in the expression, expenditure by way of interest , used in Rule 8D, while calculating disallowance in respect of exempt income even when there is no ambiguity in the expressions used in Rule 8D or in Section 14A - HELD THAT - It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 2017 (2) TMI 1219 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - No substantial question of law.
Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2009-10 regarding interpretation of Rule 8D for calculating disallowance in respect of exempt income. Analysis: 1. Issue of Interpretation of Rule 8D: The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for calculating disallowance in respect of exempt income. The key question raised by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in reading the word "net" in the expression "expenditure by way of interest" in Rule 8D. The Revenue argues that there is no ambiguity in the expressions used in Rule 8D or in Section 14A of the Act. However, it is noted that the issue raised has already been settled against the Revenue in a previous decision of the Court in CIT v/s. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 2. Conclusion: The High Court, comprising M.S. Sanklecha and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ., dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Court found that the issue raised had already been conclusively decided in a prior judgment, rendering the proposed question by the Revenue irrelevant. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
