Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. Punjab State Coop & Mktg (ITAT Chandigarh)

ACIT vs. Punjab State Coop & Mktg (ITAT Chandigarh)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (punjab_state_14A_excessive.pdf)


No S. 14A disallowance in absence of nexus between investment in tax-free securities & borrowed funds. S. 14A disallowance cannot exceed exempt income

In AY 2007-08, the assessee received dividend of Rs. 4 lakhs in respect of investment in shares made in earlier years. No investments were made during the year. It was claimed that the investment in the earlier years was made out of reserves & surplus and that there was no expenditure incurred during the year to earn the dividend. The AO held that as in the earlier years, the assessee had borrowed funds, s. 14A applied. He applied the rate of interest paid on the borrowings and disallowed Rs. 12.73 lakhs. This was deleted by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) If there is no nexus between borrowed funds and investments made in purchase of shares, disallowance u/s 14A is not warranted (Winsome Textiles 319 ITR 204 (P&H) & Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 followed);

(ii) As the total dividend income received was Rs.4 lakhs, a disallowance of Rs.12 lakhs by invoking s.14A is not warranted.

See also DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited (ITAT Delhi) on Rule 8D

Related Judgements

  1. Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi 5 Member Spl Bench) 

    It is a precondition to invoking s. 158BD that the AO must, in the course of s. 158BC proceedings, record satisfaction that the income belongs to the other person. In the absence of such finding, s. 158BD cannot be invoked. The satisfaction must be objective and not subjective….
  2. Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that…
  3. DaimlerChrysler India vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    Under Article 24 (4) of the India-Germany DTAA, Enterprises of India, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of Germany, cannot be subjected in India to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or…
  4. DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    In accordance with the principles of purposive interpretation of statutes, Expl. (iii) to s. 48 has to be read to mean that the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed by taking into account the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner.Read more ›
  5. Goldcrest Exports vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    In the absence of a PE in India, the compensation awarded under the arbitration award was not taxable in India. Consequently, there was no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax u/s 195(1) and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) could be madeRead more ›

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*