| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
October 12, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
AO cannot apply Rule 8D without showing how assessee’s method is incorrect
For AY 2008-09, the AO made a disallowance of Rs. 31 lakhs u/s 14A by applying Rule 8D without recording any satisfaction as to how the assessee’s calculation of s. 14A disallowance was incorrect. In appeal, the CIT (A) upheld the applicability of Rule 8D though he reduced the disallowance to Rs. 19 Lakhs. The department filed an appeal while the assessee filed a C.O. HELD by the Tribunal:
It is a pre-requisite that before invoking Rule 8D, the AO must record his satisfaction on how the assessee’s calculation is incorrect. The AO cannot apply Rule 8D without pointing out any inaccuracy in the method of apportionment or allocation of expenses. Further, the onus is on the AO to show that expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for earning tax-free income. Without discharging the onus, the AO is not entitled to make an ad hoc disallowance. A clear finding of incurring of expenditure is necessary. No disallowance can be made on the basis of presumptions (law laid down in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 reiterated)
Related Posts:
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
- Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) It is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.…
- Interactive Avenues Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Unless a claim for deduction in respect of payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited is made in the computation of business income, there cannot be any occasion for invoking section 40(a)(i) for its disallowance in computation of business income. As we have analyzed earlier also in this order, section 40(a)(i)…
- JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) If we accept the argument of the learned DR that u/s 154 of the Act, ld. AO is empowered to deal with the escapement of income in respect of which the reasons were not recorded even after the assessment reopened under section 147 of the Act is completed, it would…
- Deepak Nagar vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) These facts clearly demonstrate that the assessee is a habitual investor and being a qualified professional [Chartered Accountant], is well aware of market trends of shares in the stock market. The entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties or independent…
- Radhika Roy / Prannoy Roy vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Where an individual or after 1 st day of October 2009, receives any property other than immovable property for a consideration, which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding INR 50,000/- , the aggregate of fair market value of such property as…
In reference to the order “DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited (ITAT Delhi)”mailed to me today, I think that the order indicates that the assessment is for AY-2007-08, & not of AY-2008-09,Pl. confirm.