Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Pharmed Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cir 2(2)(2), Mumbai on 16 January, 2019
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 6222/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
Pharmed Ltd. DCIT-2(2)(2)
Pharmed House, Room No. 549, Aayakar
Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Marg,
Mumbai-400023.
Vs. Mumbai-20.
PAN: AAACP2191A
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)
Respondent by : Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Date of Hearing : 16.01.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019
ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, (the ld. CIT(A) dated 01.08.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Though the assessee has raised as many as five grounds of appeal, however, in our considered view the sole ground of appeal relates to disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act.
2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the ground of appeal raised by assessee is covered by various decision of Tribunal as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High ITA No. 6222/Mum2017 -Pharmed Limited Court in Joint Investments vs. CIT (372 ITR 694), Punjab & Haryana High Court in PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala (393 ITR 476). The ld. AR further submits that during the relevant Financial Year, the assessee earned exempt income of Rs. 28,005/-, therefore, in view of the decision referred above, the disallowance under section 14A should not exceed the exempt income.The ld. AR of the assessee also furnished the copy of various decisions which are as follows:
(i) Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [393 ITR 476 (P&H)].
(ii) Joint Investments vs. CIT [372 ITR 694 (Del)].
(iii) DCIT vs. M/s Store One Retail India Ltd. in ITA No. 4731/Mum/2017.
(iv) Gold Seal Engineering Products P. Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No. 6259/Mum/2016.
(v) DCIT v. MIRC Electronics Ltd. in ITA No. 3845/Mum/2018.
(vi) M/s Slyvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT in ITA No. 8581/Mum/2011.
(vii) Indus Valley Investments. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3763/Del/2013.
(viii) M/s Daga Global Chemicals v. Asst. CIT in ITA No. 5592/Mum/2012.
3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue after going through the grounds of appeal submits that during the relevant Financial Year, the assessee has shown to have earned dividend income of Rs. 28,005/- and by following the decision of Tribunal and the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Joint Investments vs. CIT(supra), Hon'ble P&H High Court in State Bank of Patiala (supra), which is affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the issue is covered.
2
ITA No. 6222/Mum2017 -Pharmed Limited
4. We have considered the submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute that during the relevant Financial Year, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 28,005/-. Therefore, following the various decisions of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investments vs. CIT (372 ITR 694), Punjab & Haryana High Court in PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala (393 ITR 476), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of dividend income. In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2019.
Sd/ Sd/-
RAMIT KOCHAR PAWAN SINGH
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 16.01.2019
SK
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. Assessee
2. Respondent
3. The concerned CIT(A)
4. The concerned CIT
5. DR "C" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
BY ORDER,
Dy./Asst. Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai
3