9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 44 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT - The assessee nowhere earned any exempt income, therefore, no disallowance is required in view of the provisions u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is being decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
Issues involved:
- Interpretation of Section 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Justifiability of CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the addition raised by the AO - Applicability of precedents cited in the case Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Section 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had shown dividend income of ?7,500, which was earned from a taxable investment and not claimed as exempt income. The CIT(A) relied on various legal precedents and held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance was required under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Act. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be judicious and correct, thereby deciding this issue in favor of the assessee against the revenue. 2. Justifiability of CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the addition raised by the AO: The revenue had raised an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, contending that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition raised under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Act. The revenue argued that the CIT(A)'s finding was not justifiable and should be set aside. However, the assessee's representative refuted this contention, stating that as the assessee did not earn any exempt income, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was correct. The Tribunal examined the arguments of both parties and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition in accordance with the law. 3. Applicability of precedents cited in the case: The revenue questioned the CIT(A)'s reliance on precedents cited in the case, arguing that they were distinguishable as they were rendered in cases decided prior to the introduction of rule 8D or prior to the clarification issued by CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the legal position that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied the legal principles and decided the matter judiciously, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai, in its judgment, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition raised under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding the CIT(A)'s decision to be legally sound and justifiable based on established legal principles and precedents.
|
