9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 286 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A of the Act Held that - The relevant assessment year 2007-08 is outside the scope of provisions of Rule 8D - The provisions cannot be treated as applicable to the A.Y.2007-08 the decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed - the percentage of the exempt income can constitute a reasonable estimate for making disallowance in the years earlier to the assessment year 2008-09 thus, the AO is directed to quantify the disallowance Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Disallowance made under section 14A of the Income-tax Act. 3. Applicability of Rule 8D for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 4. Denial of liability for penal interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D. Analysis: Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal The appeal was filed with a delay of 44 days, and the assessee provided reasons for the delay, citing illness as the cause supported by a medical certificate. The Tribunal considered the explanation and held that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and not intentional. It was emphasized that courts should take a lenient view while condoning delays, especially when reasons are factually correct. The Tribunal, following settled law, condoned the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Issue 2: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act The assessee contested the disallowance made by the Ld.CIT(A) under section 14A of the Income-tax Act concerning interest and dividend incomes. The AO disallowed an amount invoking section 14A read with Rule 8D. However, the Tribunal noted that Rule 8D was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2007-08, as clarified by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in previous judgments. The Tribunal directed the AO to quantify the disallowance based on the High Court's decisions, partially allowing the appeal on this ground. Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 8D for the Assessment Year 2007-08 The Tribunal clarified that Rule 8D could not be applied indirectly to the Assessment Year 2007-08, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to calculate the disallowance in accordance with the High Court's judgments, emphasizing that Rule 8D was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. Issue 4: Denial of liability for penal interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D The Tribunal deemed the issue of denial of liability for penal interest under various sections as consequential and did not require separate adjudication. The denial of liability for penal interest was considered to be of a consequential nature, and therefore, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue further. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal condoning the delay in filing the appeal, addressing the disallowance under section 14A, clarifying the inapplicability of Rule 8D for the Assessment Year 2007-08, and deeming the denial of liability for penal interest as consequential without requiring separate adjudication.
|
