Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Section 234C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 February, 2015
The third proposition argued by the learned Counsel for the
assessee is that, without prejudice to the other propositions, that
assessee's dividend from investment in mutual funds is at Rs. 3,88,420/-
and disallowance to this extent can be restricted in view of the decisions
of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd. Vs.
CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del).
Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 10(2), Mumbai on 21 December, 2016
In case, the AO want to disturb the computation of
6
I T A N o . 5 1 9 5 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited ( A . Y : 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 )
the assessee regarding disallowance that it had incurred more
expenditure in relation to the exempt income, it is pre-requisite in order to
invoke the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules that the AO has to record
his objective satisfaction regarding assessee's claim of expenses in
relation to exempt income or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with
Rule 8D having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This issue has
been analyzed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej &
Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 234 CTR 001 (Bom), wherein it is
held that sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Act does not authorize or
empower the AO to apply the prescribed method irrespective of the
nature of the claim made by the assessee. The AO has to first consider
the correctness of the claim of the assessee having regard to the
accounts of the assessee. The satisfaction of the AO has to be
objectively arrived at on the basis of those accounts, after considering all
the relevant facts and circumstances. The application of the prescribed
method arises in a situation where the claim made by the assessee in
respect of expenditure which is relatable to the earning of income which
does not form part of the total income under the Act is found to be
incorrect. On the very first proposition, argued by the learned Counsel for
the assessee in the present case before us, we are of the view that the
assessee has specifically raised ground regarding disallowance u/s 14A
of the Act read with rule 8D(2) of the Rules and this is merely a
proposition on which the assessee is arguing this issue. He need not to
raise any specific ground qua this proposition as contested by the learned
Sr. DR. We, accordingly, are of the view that in the present case the AO
failed to adhere to the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule
8D of the Rules. The AO could not find any mistake in the computation of
disallowance suo moto by the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the
disallowance and allow this issue of the assessee's appeal.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Parnika Commercial Estates Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 February, 2016
4. The CIT(A) relying on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of
DCIT vs. Damani Estates and Finance Pvt. Ltd. noted that there is no
presumption regarding sufficiency of funds invested in equity shares that
would yield interest free incomes because the tax payer has utilised the
common facilities for the investment activities and other business
activities, therefore, the indirect expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the
Rules is required to be disallowed. Therefore, he also confirmed the
action of the AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before
Tribunal.
1