Search Results For: Disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D


DSP Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Non-consideration by the ITAT of a judgement of the co-ordinate Bench makes the order a non-speaking one and breaches the principles of natural justice

In fact the impugned order of the Tribunal ought to have dealt with its decision in J. K. Investors (supra) and considered its applicability to the present facts. In view of the fact that the impugned order of the Tribunal does not deal with its decision in J. K. Investors (supra) relied upon by the assessee in support of its submission as recorded in the impugned order itself makes the impugned order a nonspeaking order and, therefore, in breach of principles of natural justice. The substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

Paresh Pritamlal Mehta vs. ITO (ITAT Pune)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-2013
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made on shares held as stock-in-trade

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not following the order of Tribunal in asessee’s own case. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had rejected the appeal of Department for assessment year 2010-11 on identical set of facts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have maintained ‘Judicial Propriety’ in following the order of Appellate Authority. As of now we restrain ourselves from commenting on the judicial indiscipline committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and expect that he shall be more careful in future in honouring the orders of the higher Appellate Authorities

DCIT vs. Binani Industries Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 25, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ 115JB: (i) Investments in subsidiary companies are strategic investments to whom s. 14A disallowance does not apply (ii) Receipt on forfeiture of share warrants is a capital receipt and has to be excluded from "Book Profits" even if credited to the P&L A/c

The assessee has duly disclosed the fact of forfeiture of share warrants amounting to Rs. 12,65,75,000/- in its notes on accounts vide Note No. 6 to Schedule 11 of Financial Statements for the year ended 31.3.2009. Hence following the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 173 TTJ (Mumbai) 238, the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with Part II and III of Schedule VI of Companies Act 1956, includes notes on accounts thereon and accordingly in order to determine the real profit of the assessee

HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Severe strictures passed against the ITAT for taking the view that the presumption laid down in HDFC Bank 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340 (Bom) that investments in tax-free securities must be deemed to have come out of own funds and (ii) Law laid down in India Advantage (Bom) that s. 14A and Rule 8D does not apply to securities held as stock-in-trade cannot be applied as both propositions are contrary to Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81 (Bom). ITAT's order reversed on the ground that it is "Judicial Indiscipline" leading to complete chaos and anarchy in the administration of law

The impugned order of the Tribunal seems to question the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) to the extent it relied upon the decision of this Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra). This is by observing that the decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.(supra) it must be appreciated was rendered in the context of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and its parameters are different from that of Section 14A of the Act. This Court in its order in HDFC Bank Ltd.(supra) consciously applied the principle of presumption as laid down in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) and in fact quoted the relevant paragraph to emphasize that the same principle / test of presumption would apply to decide whether or not interest expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act in respect of the income arising out of tax free securities. It is not the office of Tribunal to disregard a binding decision of this court. This is particularly so when the decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) has been consciously applied by this Court while rendering a decision in the context of Section 14A of the Act

Top