{"id":910,"date":"2009-08-31T19:04:03","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T19:04:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=910"},"modified":"2009-08-31T19:04:03","modified_gmt":"2009-08-31T19:04:03","slug":"topstar-mercantile-vs-acit-bombay-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/topstar-mercantile-vs-acit-bombay-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Topstar Mercantile vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=74\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=74&varname2=topstar_mercantile_daga_capital_14A.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (topstar_mercantile_daga_capital_14A.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong> S. 14A: ITAT cannot remand to apply <a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ito-vs-daga-capital-itat-mumbai-special-bench-17mb\">Daga Capital <\/a> if AO has not made disallowance<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In assessment proceedings, the AO raised a query about disallowance of expenditure attributable to exempted dividend income u\/s 14A. After considering the assessee\u2019s reply, no disallowance was made u\/s 14A, though interest expenditure was disallowed on the ground that it was not for business purposes. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the assessee, <em>the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO by observing that the AO should reconsider the matter in the light of <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ito-vs-daga-capital-itat-mumbai-special-bench-17mb\">Daga Capital Management<\/a><\/strong> 199 TTJ 289 (SB) (Mum). <\/em>On appeal by the assessee, HELD: <\/p>\n<p>As the AO had not made any disallowance u\/s 14A, <strong>the Tribunal could not have not touched the question of s. 14A and made observations prejudicial to the assessee <\/strong>while remanding the matter. <strong>It had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the AO decide afresh on the touchstone of s. 14A and Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd<\/strong>. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal to the extent it directed consideration of applicability of s. 14A was quashed &#038; set aside. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal\">\nSee Also: <a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cheminvest-ltd-vs-ito-itat-delhi-special-bench\/\"><strong>Cheminvest Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi Special Bench)<\/strong><\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ito-vs-daga-capital-itat-mumbai-special-bench-17mb\/\"><strong>Daga Capital<\/strong><\/a> 117 ITD 169 (Mum)(SB), <a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/acit-vs-indexport-ltd-itat-mumbai\/\"><strong>Indexport Ltd<\/strong> (ITAT Mumbai)<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/dcit-vs-citizen-hotels-itat-mumbai\/\"><strong>Citizen Hotels<\/strong> (ITAT Mumbai)<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ge-capital-services-vs-dcit-itat-delhi\/\"><strong>GE Capital Services<\/strong>  (ITAT Delhi)<\/a>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As the AO had not made any disallowance u\/s 14A, <strong>the Tribunal could not have not touched the question of s. 14A and made observations prejudicial to the assessee <\/strong>while remanding the matter. <strong>It had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the AO decide afresh on the touchstone of s. 14A and Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd<\/strong>. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal to the extent it directed consideration of applicability of s. 14A was quashed &#038; set aside. <\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/topstar-mercantile-vs-acit-bombay-high-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","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-910","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\/910","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=910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}