GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 699 - ITAT CHENNAI

2015 (6) TMI 699 - ITAT CHENNAI - TMI - Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - assessee is a non-resident individual - Held that:- AO has applied Rule 8D for making disallowance on income not chargeable to tax. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from assessment year 2008-09. Thus, to the impugned assessment year, i.e. assessment year 2007-08, the provisions of R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Loss account instead of treating it under the head “capital gains”. After the assessee realized her mistake, she filed a revised computation before the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer refused to accept the claim of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court ) has held that powers of the Tribunal are not impinged for accepting such claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we remit this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e head “income from house property” is a mixed question of fact and law. The authorities below have not examined the rent agreement entered into by the assessee with tenants and other facts surrounding the agreement. If the main intention of the assessee is to let out the property or any part of it, the rental income therefrom should be assessed under the head “income from house property”. If the object is to exploit the commercial property by letting out temporarily, then the income derived fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

use property”. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.2281/Mds/2014 - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - Shri A. Mohan Alankamony Shri Vikas Awasthy JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA For the Respondent : Shri S. Das Gupta, JCIT ORDER Per Vikas Awasthy, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Chennai, dated 23.05.2014 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has assailed the fin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the appeal is caused due to medical exigencies. The delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The facts in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee filed her return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 27.07.2007 declaring loss of ₹ 4,15,520/-. The case of the assessee was taken up scrutiny and the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

utation of income by setting off the short term capital loss against short term capital gains. The A.O. refused to take cognizance of the same on the ground that revised computation has been filed, without filing revised return of income. The assessee in the return of income admitted rental income from commercial property under the head income from house property . The A.O. held that the assessee in earlier assessment years has claimed the income from letting out of the property as business inco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the First Appellate Authority has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Ld. A.R. contended that the provisions of Rule 8D does not apply in the assessment year 2007- 08. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd vs. Dy. CIT (328 ITR 81). With respect to setting of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O. has failed to consider the revised computation. In support of his submission, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323). On the third issue of treating rental income from letting out of property as business income , the Ld. A.R. submitted that earlier, the assessee has been offering rental income under the head income from business . In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the assessee cannot raise fresh claim by filing a revised computation before the A.O. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that the A.O. has no power to entertain fresh claim of the assessee other than by way of revised return of income. On the issue of treating rental income under the head income from business , the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has been showing income under the head business income . There is no c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer has applied Rule 8D for making disallowance on income not chargeable to tax. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from assessment year 2008-09. Thus, to the impugned assessment year, i.e. assessment year 2007-08, the provisions of Rule 8D will not be applicable. However, we are of the opinion that a reasonable disallowance has to be made on incom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

head capital gains . After the assessee realized her mistake, she filed a revised computation before the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer refused to accept the claim of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has held that powers of the Tribunal are not impinged for accepting such claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version