{"id":2792,"date":"2011-03-05T14:05:15","date_gmt":"2011-03-05T08:35:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2792"},"modified":"2011-03-05T14:05:15","modified_gmt":"2011-03-05T08:35:15","slug":"mahesh-g-shetty-vs-cit-karnataka-high-court-despite-proviso-to-s-14a-s-14a-disallowance-can-be-made-for-earlier-years","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/mahesh-g-shetty-vs-cit-karnataka-high-court-despite-proviso-to-s-14a-s-14a-disallowance-can-be-made-for-earlier-years\/","title":{"rendered":"Mahesh G. Shetty vs. CIT (Karnataka High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=368\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=368&varname2=mahesh_shetty_14A_263.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (mahesh_shetty_14A_263.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nDespite Proviso to s.14A, s. 14A disallowance can be made for earlier years<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For AY <strong>1995-96<\/strong>, the CIT passed an order on <strong>29.12.99<\/strong> 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 <strong><em>relying on s. 14A even though s. 14A was inserted later by FA 2001 (w.r.e.f 1.4.62) &#038; the Proviso provided that the AO was not empowered to reassess etc for any AYs beginning on or before 1.4.2001<\/em><\/strong>. On appeal by the assessee HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Proviso to s. 14A which gives protection to the assessee with respect to AY 2001-02 &#038; earlier years was inserted w.e.f. <strong>11.5.2001<\/strong>. As the order of the CIT u\/s 263 was passed earlier on <strong>29.12.99<\/strong>, the protection under the Proviso is not available.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\n<strong>Note<\/strong>: In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/max_india_s263_80HHC.pdf\">CIT vs. Max India<\/a><\/strong> 295 ITR 282 (SC) it was held that the Q whether the order is \u201cerroneous &#038; prejudicial\u201d for s. 263 has to be determined as per the then prevailing law &#038; not as per retrospective law (followed in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/rallis-india-vs-acit-bombay-high-court-validity-of-s-147-reopening-has-to-be-determined-on-the-basis-of-law-prevailing-on-date-of-issue-of-s-148-notice-and-not-on-retrospectively-amended-law\">Rallis India<\/a><\/strong> 323 ITR 54(Bom)). But also see <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/honda-siel-power-products-ltd-vs-dcit-delhi-high-court-s-147-reopening-for-ay-2000-01-valid-despite-proviso-to-s-14a-concept-of-full-true-disclosure-of-material-facts-explained\">Honda Siel<\/a><\/strong> (Del) where a s. 148 notice to disallow u\/s 14A for AY 2000-01 was upheld\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Proviso to s. 14A which gives protection to the assessee with respect to AY 2001-02 &#038; earlier years was inserted w.e.f. <strong>11.5.2001<\/strong>. As the order of the CIT u\/s 263 was passed earlier on <strong>29.12.99<\/strong>, the protection under the Proviso is not available<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/mahesh-g-shetty-vs-cit-karnataka-high-court-despite-proviso-to-s-14a-s-14a-disallowance-can-be-made-for-earlier-years\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}