Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 694 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 694 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - [2016] 388 ITR 463 - Disallowance under section 14A - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- Once Rule 8(D) of the I .T. Rules, is held to be having prospective effect, naturally it could not be applied to the assessment year in question and therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous nor it can be said that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. No substantial question of law. - Disallowance of inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

circumstances, we find that it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed an error in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer or CIT (Appeals) of the amount of interest. No substantial question of law. - ITA NO. 229/2015 C/W ITA NO. 228/2015 - Dated:- 5-4-2016 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MRS. B.V.NAGARATHNA JJ. For the Appellant: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate For the Respondent: Smt. Vani. H, Advocate JUDGMENT The appellant-Revenue has pref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

> 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act being sustained at 5% of exempted income i.e., ₹ 25,23,655/- does not call for any interference even when the assessing authority was correct in making disallowance under section 14A of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had modified the same in the absence of proper reasonings? 3. Whether, on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

failed to prove that the same was for the business purpose? 2. We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue and Ms.Vani H. , learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 3. We may record that so far as question No.1 is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant-Revenu e has not pressed the said question and therefore the said question would not arise in the present appeals. 4. So far as question No.2 is concern .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Act, the provisions of Rule 8D would not be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2007-08 but would be applicable w.e.f. 24.3.2008 i.e. for -and from Assessment Year 2008-09. In holding that a reasonable disallowance of 5% of exempted income i.e. ₹ 25,23,655 is to be made in respect of the expenditure incurred to earn such income, the learned CIT (Appeals) followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the case of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ference and we therefore uphold the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue. Consequently both the grounds raised by revenue at S.No.5 to 7 and by the assessee at S.No.2 of its grounds of appeal are dismissed. 8. In the result, revenue s appeal is dismissed. 5. It may also be recorded that in the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. reported at (2010) 328 ITR 0081 , the vie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid to be erroneous nor it can be said that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 7. However, Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue did rely upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported at (2012) 344 ITR 0259 and contended that though the said case was pertaining to assessment year 2007-08, the applicability of Ru le 8(D) of the I.T. Rules .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

p> According to both counsel for the assessees proportionate disallowance is called for only under sub-s. (2) r/w r.8D of the IT Rules which came into force from 2007-08 onwards and the same cannot be applied for any earlier assessment year. 9. Therefore the judgment can hardly be said to be on the point decided for considering the applicability of Rule 8(D) of the I.T. Rules with retrospective effect as sought to be canvassed. Further, in any case, there is no consideration on the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

point is already concluded as per the decision of Bombay High Court referred to hereinabove, we do not find that any substantial question of law viz., question No.2 would arise for consideration as sought to be canvassed. 11. On question No.3 the relevant discussion of the Tribunal from paras-10.5.1 to 10.5.3 read as under: 10.5.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the orders of the authorities below, the assessee s submissions and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the interest of ₹ 44,71,565 was claimed as follows: a) On Term Loan for Filate & Siede units ₹ 44,20,762 and b) On working capital for Filate & Siede units ₹ 50,803. Therefore the facts that the entire interest paid on the Term Loan taken for acquiring fixed assets for its new unit at Hassan has been capitalized as work-in- progress has evidently not been claimed as a revenue expenditure is, in our view, factually established. .....

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 from the order of assessment, that the Assessing Officer has not established with any material evidence that the loans advanced interest free by the assessee to its subsidiary, Himatsingka Wovens P.Ltd. were diverted to it by the assessee from out of the Term Loan taken by it from banks for the existing manufacturing units at Filate and Seide or from out of loans taken for working capital for its existing units at Filate and Seide. 10.5.3 In view of the established fact that the in .....

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