Income Tax : The issue was whether exempt dividend income could be taxed by overriding Rule 8D. The ITAT held that additions beyond the Section...
Income Tax : Tribunal confirms that detailed AO dissatisfaction justifies invoking Rule 8D, ensuring proper disallowance of expenses related to...
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 : 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 : ITAT Pune ruled that investments in mutual funds and tax-free bonds should not form part of the investment pool for Rule 8D(2)(ii)...
Income Tax : The ITAT Kolkata held that the Assessing Officer could not examine issues beyond the limited scrutiny mandate without following CB...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi accepted the assessee’s contention that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The ruling restri...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer did not record dissatis...
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...
For the year under consideration the assessee has specifically raised a point before the AO that 97.82% of the investment is in the subsidiary companies and joint venture companies and, therefore, no expenditure was incurred for maintaining the portfolio on these investments
Clause 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 specifically states that “this instruction will apply to appeals filed on or after 9.02.2011. However, the cases where appeals have been filed before 9.02.2011 will be governed by the instructions on this subject
Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Inc, ITA No.970 of 2008 (O&M) , Dated- 02.04.2014 made reference to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, 323 ITR 518 and CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd 319 ITR 204 to hold that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned.
Section 14A was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April 1962 and will, accordingly apply to the assessment year 1962-63 and subsequent years. Till the assessment year 2008-09, there was no standard rule prescribed by the department. Therefore, assessing officers were applying various methods to disallow the expenditure under this section.
We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the Assessee was having sufficient interest free funds and therefore there was no justification for presuming that any part of interest bearing loan has been utilized for the purpose of making investments.
The assessee company is a builder and developer of residential and commercial projects. It was noted by the AO that the assessee company is a partner in several “partnership firms”. The AO had made a list of all those firms along with profit sharing ratio of the assessee in those firms.
Circular No. 5/2014-Income Tax Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of its powers under section 119 of the Act hereby clarifies that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income.
These appeals by the Revenue relates to Assessment Year 2001-02. The respondent-assessee, as noticed above, namely, Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Limited, had filed return of income on 31st October, 2001 declaring „nil‟income after setting for brought forward losses and depreciation.
We find that the assessee has made payment on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act and this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Shree Limited, supra, wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under
The issue of revenue’s appeal is that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance made by AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules at Rs.55,47,700/-. Here the assessee before the lower authorities and even before us explained that out of the total interest payment of Rs.97,22,656/-, the interest aggregating to Rs. 92,69,529/- was paid to Brila Global Finance Co. Ltd.,
