| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
December 13, 2013 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
S. 14A & Rule 8D: Expenditure on acquiring shares out of “commercial expediency” & to earn taxable income cannot be disallowed
The assessee borrowed funds and invested Rs 6 crore in shares of subsidiary companies. It claimed that the said subsidiaries were Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) formed out of “commercial expediency” in order to obtain contracts from the NHAI and that the SPVs so formed engaged the assessee as contractor to execute the works awarded to them (i.e. SPVs) by the NHAI. It was pointed that the turnover from the execution of the contracts was shown in the P&L A/c. It was claimed that the interest attributable to the investments made by the assessee in the SPVs could not be disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D because it could not be termed as expense /interest incurred for earning exempted income. The CIT(A) and Tribunal (order attached) upheld that assessee’s claim and held that as the investments in the shares were made out of “commercial expediency” the expenditure incurred for that purpose could not be disallowed u/s 14A and Rule 8D. On appeal by the department to the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:
This is merely a question of fact and does not involve any question of law much less a substantial question of law, as the Tribunal held that the expenses which have been claimed by the assessee were not towards the exempted income
Related Posts:
- Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
- Suman Poddar vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The AO has worked out the glaring facts, which cannot be ignored and which are clear indicative of the non-genuine nature of the transactions. The assessee could not satisfactorily explain how the investments in the absence of any evidence as to the financials, growth and operations of the company could…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- RDS Project Limited vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) It is true that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to disclose information pertaining to the share applicants, the amounts and their source, the mode in which payment was made and confirmatory letters together with PAN details. But it is also trite…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
Leave a Reply