9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 6 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that - In the present cases as noted that assessee had made strategic investments in subsidiary companies and the purpose was to run hotels and the investments were not made for the purpose of earning dividend. Therefore, disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made. Further, we find that the subsidiary company in which the investment was made during the years were situated outside India, thus dividend if any received from them would not have been exempted. Therefore, keeping in view all facts and circumstances, the ground No.1 dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on world trade centre and world trade tower - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that - Similar issue has come up before the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the earlier Assessment Years 1995-96 to 2006-07 allowing the depreciation - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Allowance of depreciation on World Trade Centre and World Trade Tower. Issue 1: Deletion of Disallowance under Section 14A The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that no dividend was received during the year, and hence disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted. The assessee relied on several High Court decisions, including CIT Vs Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., CIT Vs Shivam Motors (P) Ltd., and CIT Vs Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., which held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made if no exempt income is earned. The Revenue countered with a Kerala High Court decision in South Indian Bank Vs CIT, arguing that earning of dividend is not relevant for disallowance under Section 14A. They also suggested that the investment in subsidiary companies could be a manipulation to avoid declaring dividend income. The Tribunal noted the following undisputed facts: - No dividend was received by the assessee during the year. - Investments were made in subsidiary companies for strategic purposes. - The subsidiary companies were situated outside India, and any dividend received would not be exempt. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., which held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal also cited similar decisions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Gujarat High Court, and Allahabad High Court. Additionally, it was noted that investments for strategic purposes are not made to earn dividends, further supporting the non-applicability of Section 14A. The Tribunal concluded that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in the absence of dividend income and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 2: Allowance of Depreciation on World Trade Centre and World Trade Tower The second issue concerned the allowance of depreciation on World Trade Centre and World Trade Tower. The CIT(A) had allowed the depreciation, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The Tribunal noted that this issue was already covered in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal had consistently held that the depreciation claim was valid. Following the precedent set in the earlier years, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing the depreciation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well. Conclusion Both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A and to allow the depreciation on World Trade Centre and World Trade Tower. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29th Dec., 2014.
|
