TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D to be in conformity with the law laid down by Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd [ 2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT] Also undisputed that the AO has not computed any disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) and Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and only under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income was computed in the present case. It is pertinent to note that Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules provides a computation mechanism whereby 0.5% of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet on the first and last day of the previous year is considered as the expenditure for the purpose of section 14A Therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order upholding the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.Decided Disallowance of long-term capital loss and carry forward of same - HELD THAT:- We find that the investment in Prestige Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. was continuing from the previous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dis to other appeals. ITA No.1462/Mum./2023 Assessee s Appeal A.Y. 2012 13 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai has erred in passing the appeal order by confirming addition of Rs. 1,92,512/- under section 14A as calculated r.w.s rule 8 of the income tax act 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai has erred in rejecting submission of the appellant that it has not incurred any expenditure on invested amount in the subsidiary company as promoters nothing can be disallowed u/s 14A. 3. Appellant therefore pray that assessing officer may be directed to delete disallowances expenses of Rs. 1,92,512/- u/s 14A. Even state bank of India already filed personal insolvency case against promoters of appellant. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 4. The only dispute raised by the assessee, in the present appeal, is pertaining to disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is a promoter of the aforesaid entity and therefore incurred no expenditure for earning the dividend income. Reiterating its submissions as were made before the lower authorities, it was submitted that during the year the assessee earned revenue from operation and other income of Rs. 44,99,006, while against this income it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 29,47,820. It was further submitted that the said expenditure includes service charges, director remuneration, audit fees, interest payment, professional charges, office expenses, and conveyance expenses. Thus, it was submitted that no expenditure was incurred for earning the dividend income of Rs. 14,61,840, during the year. 8. We find that in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made may not be relevant for applicability of section 14A of the Act. Therefore, we find no merit in the submission of the assessee that the investment in M/s Trimax IT Infrastructure and Services Limited was held by it as a promoter since the purpose of holding the investment is immaterial for section 14A of the Act. Further, in Godr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 3,85,02,530, (i.e. investment made by the assessee in M/s Trimax IT Infrastructure and Services Limited) under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order upholding the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1464/Mum./2023 Assessee s Appeal A.Y. 2013 14 12. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai has erred in passing the appeal order by confirming of addition of Rs. 1,92,512/- under section 14A as calculated r.w.s rule 8 of the income tax act 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai has erred in rejecting submission of the appellant that it has not incurred any expenditure on invested amount in the subsidiary company as promoters nothing can be disallowed u/s 14A. 3. Appellant there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 410/- long term capital loss to be carried forward. Even state bank of India already filed personal insolvency case against promoters of appellant. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 18. The issue arising in grounds no. 1 and 2, raised in assessee s appeal, is pertaining to disallowance under section 14A, read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). We find that basis of computation of aforesaid disallowance and submissions of both sides are similar to the assessment year 2012-13. We further find that the learned CIT(A) following its findings rendered in the assessment year 2012-13 dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue upon finding the material facts to be identical/similar except with variance in figures. Therefore, since a similar issue has been decided in assessee s appeal for the assessment year 2012-13, the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, the impugned order on this issue is upheld and grounds no. 1 and 2, raised in assessee s appeal are dismissed. 19. The issue arising in ground no. 3, raised in assessee s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of long-term capital loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue is set aside, and ground no. 3 raised in assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground No. 4, raised in assessee s appeal is general in nature and therefore, needs no separate adjudication. 23. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1467/Mum./2023 Assessee s Appeal A.Y. 2015 16 24. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai has erred in passing the appeal order by confirming of disallowances of bad debts of Rs. 2,22,961/- u/s 36(2)(1) of the income tax Act. 2. The earned CIT has erred in confirming disallowing bad debts, not considering that as this bad debts amounts is part of unrecovered sales outstanding which has been shown as income in earlier years in books of accounts. 3. Appellant therefore pray that assessing officer may be directed to delete disallowances bad debts of Rs. 2,22,961/- u/s 36(2)(1) of the income tax Act. Even st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
