9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 605 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - CIT-A justification in restricting the amount of disallowance u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income - HELD THAT - This issue stands concluded by the decision of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of Patiala 2017 (5) TMI 843 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein it was held that the amount of disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed exempt income and this decision was confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court 2018 (11) TMI 1565 - SC ORDER In the light of the above legal positions, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation of Rule 8D for calculating disallowance. 3. Exclusion of strategic investments from disallowance. 4. Consideration of administrative and financial expenditures for investments. 5. Application of CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 for disallowance calculation. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. The Revenue argued that there was no provision in Section 14A to support such a restriction. The Revenue also raised concerns about the CIT(A) relying on certain decisions and not following the principles established in other court rulings. 2. The Revenue further argued that the CIT(A) should have considered the application of Rule 8D for calculating the disallowance under Section 14A. The Revenue highlighted that the CIT(A) accepted the grounds of the assessee regarding the exclusion of strategic investments from Rule 8D calculation, even though there was no specific provision for such exclusion in the Income Tax Act or Rule. The Revenue emphasized that investments in sister concerns could generate exempt income subject to disallowance under Section 14A. 3. The Revenue also raised concerns about the systematic investments made by the assessee company, emphasizing the significant financial and administrative expenditures involved. The Revenue pointed out that fresh investments were made in Mutual Funds and shares during the relevant financial year. Additionally, the Revenue highlighted the CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2014, which mandates the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A if the assessee has investments generating exempt income, regardless of whether such income is declared. 4. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and analyzed the legal precedents. The main issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that the amount of disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Based on this legal position, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the legal principle that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The decision was based on established court rulings and legal interpretations, providing clarity on the application of Rule 8D and the exclusion of strategic investments from disallowance calculations.
|
