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

Home › All Judgements › Mahesh G. Shetty vs. CIT (Karnataka High Court)

Mahesh G. Shetty vs. CIT (Karnataka High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 5, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (mahesh_shetty_14A_263.pdf)


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…
  • XLHealth Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court) Firstly, in the impugned order, the first appellate authority throwing to the winds, the principles of judicial discipline and binding order passed by higher appellate forum, not only reiterated his own stand, which were set aside by the Tribunal but the same is sought to be defended by the Department…
  • Kalyani Motors Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner (Karnataka High Court) this Court is surprised and is pained by the manner in which the authority has passed the impugned reassessment order in the second round of assessment for the period 01.04.0211 to March 2012 just ignoring the applicable Notification and throwing it to winds. The said order is therefore nothing less…
  • Golden Gate Properties Ltd vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court) Once a statute requires to pay tax and stipulates period within which such payment is to be made, the payment must be made within that period. If the payment is not made within that period, there is default and an appropriate action can be taken under the Act. Interpretation canvassed…
  • PCIT vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) We express our concern and anguish at the tendency of the Revenue Department to file unnecessary appeals u/s. 260-A of the Act even though the issues are ex facie covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The substantial question of…

Related Judgements

  1. CWT vs. Value Capital Services (Delhi High Court) 

    In a case where it is alleged that persons contributing share application moneys are bogus, it is quite obvious that is very difficult for the assessee-company to show the creditworthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability to make the investment, their returns…
  2. CIT vs. S. K. Katyal (Delhi High Court) 

    HELD in the context of s. 158BE (1) (b) which imposes a time limit for making a block assessment order with reference to the date of execution of the last of the authorizations for search u/s 132 which in turn is deemed to be the date of the conclusion…
  3. Subodh Kumar Bhargava vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) 

    Though s. 275(1) (c) provides that the limitation for levy of penalty shall be “after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the…
  4. CIT vs. Grasim Industries (Bombay High Court) 

    Once the Apex Court in Hongo India 236 E.L.T. 417 has held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing Appeal under s. 35 G of the Excise Act, we have no option but to hold that this Court has no power to condone…
  5. CIT vs. M/s Sidhartha Enterprises (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 

    The judgment in Dharmendra Textile cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability u/s 276C and penalty u/s 271(1) ( c) had to be kept in…

Leave a Reply

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

*