| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 5, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Despite Proviso to s.14A, s. 14A disallowance can be made for earlier years
For AY 1995-96, the CIT passed an order on 29.12.99 u/s 263 directing the AO to disallow the interest on the moneys borrowed by the assessee for investing in the capital of a firm. In appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT by relying on s. 14A even though s. 14A was inserted later by FA 2001 (w.r.e.f 1.4.62) & the Proviso provided that the AO was not empowered to reassess etc for any AYs beginning on or before 1.4.2001. On appeal by the assessee HELD dismissing the appeal:
The Proviso to s. 14A which gives protection to the assessee with respect to AY 2001-02 & earlier years was inserted w.e.f. 11.5.2001. As the order of the CIT u/s 263 was passed earlier on 29.12.99, the protection under the Proviso is not available.
Note: In
CIT vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) it was held that the Q whether the order is “erroneous & prejudicial” for s. 263 has to be determined as per the then prevailing law & not as per retrospective law (followed in
Rallis India 323 ITR 54(Bom)). But also see
Honda Siel (Del) where a s. 148 notice to disallow u/s 14A for AY 2000-01 was upheld
Related Posts:
- Navin Jolly vs. ITO (Karnataka High Court) The usage of the property has to be considered for determining whether the property in question is a residential property or a commercial property. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid two apartments are being put to commercial use and therefore, the aforesaid apartments cannot be treated as residential…
- DIT vs. Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Before proceeding further, we may advert to well settled rules of Interpretation with regard to taxing statutes. The substitution of a provision results in repeal of earlier provision and its replacement by new provision. [See: U.P.SUGAR MILLS ASSN. VS. STATE OF U.P.’, (2002) 2 SCC 645]. The aforesaid principle of…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- Amazonite Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Calcutta High Court) The failure to do the above is nothing short of being an act of highhandedness. Such actions of the authorities is an obloquy and reprehensible. No explanation has been provided for the same either in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions or by counsel appearing on behalf of…
- 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…
- M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court) According to the Assessing Officer, assessee had erred in offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were sold whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land is trasferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If the assessee…
Leave a Reply