Income Tax : Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year Section 14A o...
Income Tax : The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) was whether section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) enables the Depart...
Income Tax : The ever debatable ‘Disallowance under section 14A’ (read with Rule 8D (2) now has again found a different horizon whe...
Income Tax : No applicability of section 14A on exemption of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under Section 112A of Incom...
Income Tax : Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) provides that no deduction shall be allowed of any expenditure incurred in...
Income Tax : The mechanical disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is also being added to the book profit by the AO irrespective of the fact whethe...
Income Tax : As earlier intimated to you, Writ Petition bearing No. 50 of 2010 (Indian Exporters Grievances Forum & Other vs. CIT) challenging ...
Income Tax : Explanation to Section 14A has only a prospective effect from April 1, 2022, and cannot be retrospectively applied to earlier asse...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules 14A amendment is prospective. No disallowance if no exempt income earned, upholding Delhi HC's Era Infrastructur...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi remanded the issue back to file of AO to re-compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act by taking t...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) r.w.s. 14A of the Income Tax Rules should be made on average value of inve...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s plea on Section 14A disallowance, ruling that the amendment introduced in Finance Act 20...
Income Tax : Circular No. 5/2014-Income Tax Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of its powers under section 119 of the Act hereby clari...
Income Tax : INCOME TAX NOTIFICATION NO-45/2008, DT: March 24, 2008 Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not incl...
Kama Holding Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- Rule 8D has been held to be retrospective in nature and the dis allowance has been worked out by applying Rule 8D. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in subsequent judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Another (2010) 234 CTR (Bom) 1 has held Rule 8D to be prospective in nature. Thus, Rule 8D would not be applicable to the assessment year in question i.e. 2007-08. The Hon’ble High Court, however, has directed that indirect expenses which may be attributable on a reasonably proper basis can only be disallowed.
Since the assessment year involved in this appeal is 2005-06 Rule 8D of the IT Rules is not applicable in the present case keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. In this case the ld. CIT-Admn has issued jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act based on the order of the ITAT, Special Bench, which has been subsequently over ruled by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra). Therefore we are of the view that invoking of provision of section 263 of the IT Act is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we squash the order of ld. CIT-Admn and allow the appeal of assessee.
Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Even for the pre-Rule8D period, whenever the issue of section 14A arises before an Assessing Officer, he has, first of all, to ascertain the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. Even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incuured in relation to income which does not form part of total income, the assessing officer will have to verify the correcteness of such claim.
Mitsutor Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The assessee was owner of the premises in which it was carrying on business. The assessee paid maintenance charges to the society of Apartment Owners. According to the AO the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the payment of maintenance charges to the society as the payment by the assessee to the society was in the nature of contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 194C was applicable.
Mid-Day Multimedia Ltd Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the AO had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the AO is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The AO must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record.
The AO can not apply Rule 8D without pointing out any inaccuracy in the method of apportionment or allocation of expenses as adopted by the assessee. Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A(2) can be invoked only if the AO “having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred” in relation to tax-free income.
This Article summarizes recent decisions Bombay and Kerala High Courts on the issue of disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income by way of dividend on shares.
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT,, ITA 626/2010 and W.P. 758/2010 dated 12 August 2010, – Bombay High Court rules on prospective operation of Rule 8D and upholds the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D.
CIT vs. Leena Ramachandran (Kerala High Court):-I-T- Sec 14A – assessee can claim deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds utilised for acquisition of shares only if shares are held as stock-in-trade and not investment: HC
Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers, a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal (96 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)) and the Bombay High Court (310 ITR 421 (Bom)) held that the ‘loss’ incurred by an assessee in ‘dividend-stripping’ transactions cannot be disallowed on the ground that it was ‘tax-planning‘. The department’s SLP against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Supreme Court today, 6th July 2010.
