The issue raised before the High Court was “ Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law , the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs 50, 44, 792 u/s 14A of the Act “ The parties agreed that the issue is covered against the assessee in view of Judgement of Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd v. CIT ( 2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). Alternative claim was raised before the Court for the first time that disallowance cannot be in excess of total exempt income . Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that ; as the alternative claim was not raised before the Tribunal the High Court declined to entertain the claim . Court held that issue not raised before Tribunal, could not be allowed to be urged before High Court in appeal- however, only an issue of jurisdiction would be allowed, even if same was not raised before Tribunal .Followed CIT v. Tata Chemicals (P) Ltd ( 2002) 256 ITR 395 ( Bom) (HC), CIT v. Lata Shantilal Shah (Smt) (2010) 323 ITR 297( Bom) (HC) (AY. 2008-09)
Ashish Estate & Properties (P.) Ltd. & CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 585 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Issue not raised before Tribunal, could not be allowed to be urged before High Court in appeal- However, only an issue of jurisdiction would be allowed, even if same was not raised before Tribunal – Disallowance of expenditure in respect of strategic investment- Alternative claim was raised before the Court was that disallowance cannot be in excess of total exempt income – As the alternative claim was not raised before the Tribunal the High Court declined to entertain the claim [S.14A,254(1), R.8D ]