This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
No Disallowance U/s. 14A if no expenditure incurred to earn exempt income; ITAT Restores file to AO
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Vision EL Tech & Services (P.) Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2012-13
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Bangalore
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
Vision EL Tech & Services (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
From the details filed it is observed that there are several instances of fresh investment as well as sale of investment in shares, evidencing frequent movement in the assessee’s investment portfolio and accordingly it cannot be accepted that no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income, then the expenditure incurred in relation to the salary/remuneration etc. of top management and higher executives involved in the process of taking decisions of purchase/sale of investments have an...
IMPROMPTU :
The view the itat has taken, based on the factual matrix in the given case, particularly the observations /the line of reasoning adopted by the Bangalore Bench, in paragraph 3.5.1. , do warrant a conscious note to be taken of.
For an independent examination by anyone concerned, however, suggest to bear in mind / laser-sharp focus , the viewpoints painstakingly shared in great details, which are readily available in public domain (< refer the several posts on this website itself, besides on FB and LInkedin). That was done wprt the last delivered SC Judgment in Maxopps' case.
Any such study may help professionals and taxpayers alike, to appreciate that, if nothing else, -in one's firm conviction, quite contrary to the expert opinion callously expressed in certain quarters,- the controversies surrounding the enactments of sec 14A and Rule 8D could not by any intelligent thinking or stretch of imagination, be rightly regarded to have been set at rest by the mentioned SC Judgment, once for all; instead, undoubtedly forebodes a procrastination and prolongation of disputes and litigation, with no end in sight.
Over to the eminent Experts , in field practice (TAX and/or AUDIT), to share own thoughts /views, if any, materially at variance ?!