Case Law Details
Zuari Investments Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
As far as the alternate submissions of the Learned AR in working the disallowance u/s 14A only after considering the investment which have yielded tax free income is concerned, we find force in the submission of Learned AR. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2014) 90 CCH 81 (Delhi) (HC), Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 97 (Gujarat) and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. [2015] 230 Taxman 63 (Allahabad) has held that Section 14A of the Act cannot be involved when no exempt income was earned. Before us, Learned AR has submitted that out of the total investments which the AO has considered for working of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D, the investments which had yielded dividend were to the extent of Rs.20,55,16,081/- (as on 31.03.2013) and Rs.20,98,25,264/- (as on 31.03.2012). The contention of the assessee that it has received dividend only from the aforesaid investments has not been controverted by Revenue. In such a situation, relying on the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that disallowance u/s 14A needs to be re-worked on the basis of the investments which have yielded tax free income. We therefore direct the AO to work out the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D on the basis of investments which had yielded dividend. Thus Ground of assessee is partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.05.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
