Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1109 - ITAT BANGALOREDisallowance u/s.14A - as argued by assessee that the dividend was not earned in respect of investment in shares but the dividend was earned in respect of those shares which were held by the assessee in course of assessee’s business of dealing in shares and therefore, section 14A is not applicable in the present case - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Vs. CIT [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] we reject this argument of ld. AR of assessee that no disallowance should be made u/s. 14A because the dividend income was earned in respect of those shares which were held by assessee in course of business and not as investment. Disallowance should not exceed the amount of exempt income in each of these 3 years, we find force in this alternative submission because the same is supported by various judicial pronouncements. As relying on M/S. WAY2WEALTH SECURITIES (P) LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7 (1) (2) , BANGALORE. [2018 (6) TMI 1627 - ITAT BANGALORE] we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A in each of these three years to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee in each of these 3 years and such total disallowance to be made to the extent of exempt income should be inclusive of disallowance made by the assessee suo moto. On this issue, the ground of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of professional charges - allowable business expenditure - HELD THAT:- Categorical finding is given by CIT(A) that assessee is not able to substantiate the claim made and demonstrate that these payments were indeed made for the purpose of business. In spite of this categorical finding of CIT (A), nothing has been brought on record before us to establish that these payments were made for the purpose of business. As per the assessment order for Assessment Year 2009-10, it is seen that it is noted by the AO that year that AR was asked to specifically explain the actual services rendered by these parties and also provide necessary evidence to prove that the services rendered by these parties is of relevance to the business of trading. But assessee failed to explain the same despite giving sufficient opportunities. - Ground of the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is rejected. Assessment Year 2011-12 - Disallowance of professional charges - the amount in question of ₹ 4.68 Crores paid by assessee to M/s. KKR Holdings Mauritius was for the purpose of arranging investments in M/s. Coffee Day Resorts (P) Ltd. by way of equity, preference and Debentures and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that this expenditure is business expenditure for the present assessee. Hence, on this issue also, we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT (A). Accordingly ground no. 11 in Assessment Year 2011-12 is also rejected. - Decided against assessee.
|