Gujarat High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Gmm Pfaulder Ltd....Opponent(S) on 31 July, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav
O/TAXAP/506/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 506 of 2017
==========================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2....Appellant(s)
Versus
GMM PFAULDER LTD....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 31/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 06.09.2016 raising following questions:
"[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in restricting the the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D to Rs.2,50,000 as against Rs.18,04,252/ made by the Assessing Officer ?
[B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.70,05,000/ made on account of proportionate interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act made by the Assessing Officer on the interest free funds advance to it subsidiary companies?"
2. First question pertains to disallowance made by Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:07:09 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/506/2017 ORDER the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D which disallowance was restricted to Rs.2,50,000/. The second issue pertains to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the interest expenditure claimed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On both issues, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal held on facts that the disallowances were not justified. It was held that the assessee has sufficient interest free funds and there was nothing on record to suggest that interest bearing funds were diverted for investment. We notice that both these questions were considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.1149 of 2014 concerning the same assessee for earlier assessment year. These questions were rejected as being only factual in nature. This Tax Appeal is also therefore dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:07:09 IST 2017
O/TAXAP/506/2017 ORDER
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J.)
ANKIT
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:07:09 IST 2017