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 › Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 26, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (Sundaram_14A_Rule_8D.pdf)

S. 14A/ Rule 8D does not apply to short-term investments, gains from which are taxable

In AY 2008-09 the assessee received tax-free dividend on its investments. The AO applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance u/s 14A. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued inter alia that s. 14A and Rule 8D did not apply to short-term investments as the gains arising on their transfer was chargeable to tax. HELD by the Tribunal:

Some of the investments made by the assessee are short term. Since assessee is paying capital gains tax on short term investments, Rule 8D will not apply on them and the AO is directed to recompute disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D after excluding short term investments.

Related Posts:

  • DCIT vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Once the AO was satisfied with the identity and credit worthiness of the investor and genuineness of transactions, the assessee can be said to have proved the "nature and source" of the cash credits. The amounts received as Share premium are in the nature of capital receipts as per the…
  • Dr. Muthian Sivathanu vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The assessee had already acquired the asset viz., "stock" from the employee's stock options scheme when he was serving abroad in the parent company and during that assessment year, the assessee was non-resident. Therefore during the beginning of the relevant assessment year, the stock viz., the asset was already vested…
  • Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) The company in which the assessees had purchased the equity shares had no creditability and no prudent investor would make such investment. The motive of the price manipulation is only to bring out their black money as legitimately earned Long Term Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act…
  • Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. Bishal Jaiswal (Supreme Court) Under S. 18 an acknowledgement of liability signed by the party against whom the right is claimed gives rise to a fresh period of limitation. Under Explanation (b) to the Section the word ‘signed’ means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised. A company being a corporate body…
  • Pee Aar Securities Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As the things stand now, genuineness of transactions is to be examined in the light of the prevailing ground realities, and that is precisely what we have done. We are of the considered view that there is nothing to establish genuineness of the share subscription transactions on the facts of…
  • R.A.K. Ceramics vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The powers conferred upon the CIT(A) under section 249(3), for condoning the delay in filing of appeal if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period, are statutory power to alleviate genuine suffering of taxpayers, so far as their grievance redressal by…

Related Judgements

  1. ACIT vs. Star India (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Deduction u/s 80-HHF (1) is available in respect of the ‘profits of the business’ which means the entire business profits and not only the profits derived from the export activity. Accordingly, deduction is allowable even if the export activity has resulted in a loss provided there is an overall…
  2. DCIT vs. ING Investment (ITAT Mumbai) 

    For purposes of s. 14A, only the expenditure which is proved to have a nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed and not on an ad-hoc basis. Read more ›
  3. DCIT vs. M/s Premsons (ITAT Mumbai) 

    While conducting a survey u/s 133A the department has no power to examine any person on oath. Consequently, such a statement has no evidentiary value and no addition can be made solely on the basis of such statement;
    Read more ›
  4. DCIT vs. Bombay Diamond Co (ITAT Mumbai) 

    In Apollo Tyres Ltd 265 ITR 273 and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd 262 ITR 340 it was held that if the accounts were prepared in accordance with Schedule VI, the AO had no jurisdiction to make adjustments beyond what was provided in s. 115JB. However, as the assessee had…
  5. Airlines Rotables vs. JDIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The argument of the Revenue that there is a “Dependent Agent PE” under Article 5(4)(b) is also not correct. The rationale of a Dependent Agent PE is that the foreign enterprise carries on business through a dependent agent, who is integrated into the principal’s business to a substantial extent….

Leave a Reply

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

*