Disallowance under Section 14A of Income TAx Act, 1961
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 : The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when sufficient interest-free own funds are available,...
Income Tax : The ruling confirms that notional disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added while computing book profits under the MAT regim...
Income Tax : Section 14A disallows expenses related to tax-exempt income. Rule 8D provides the formula, ensuring only taxable-income-related ex...
Income Tax : Tribunal confirms that detailed AO dissatisfaction justifies invoking Rule 8D, ensuring proper disallowance of expenses related to...
Income Tax : Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society has made a Representation on 'Suggestions for Amendments in the Income Tax Act', on 24th May...
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 : 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF IND-AS AND THEIR IMPACT ON TAXABLE INCOME IND-AS (Indian version of IFRS) accounting standards are being impl...
Income Tax : Amendments to Section 14A to provide that (i) dividend received after suffering dividend-distribution tax and share income from fi...
Income Tax : As earlier intimated to you, Writ Petition bearing No. 50 of 2010 (Indian Exporters Grievances Forum & Other vs. CIT) challenging ...
Income Tax : Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: stat...
Income Tax : The case examined whether interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal he...
Income Tax : Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical ...
Income Tax : A taxpayer could submit a revised return u/s 139(5) only when it discovered a bona fide omission or incorrect statement in the ori...
Income Tax : The Tribunal set aside additions to book profit after ruling that MAT provisions do not apply to banks established under a special...
Income Tax : 2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts,...
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...
Income Tax : The provisions of Sections 144-A and 144-B of the Income-tax Act have come into force with effect from 1st January 1976. Instructi...
Income Tax – Section 10(33), 14A, Rule 8D – Whether disallowance of expenses incurred to earn an exempt income under section 14A, in effect from April 2007, could be applied to assessee for assessment year 2006-07 without an established nexus between exempt income and expenses – Assessee’s appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT In CIT vs. Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) it was held that disallowance u/s 14A required finding of incurring of expenditure and where it was found that for earning exempted income no expenditure had been incurred, disallowance u/s 14A could not stand. On the other hand, in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co 328 ITR 81 (Bom) it was held that the AO could adopt a reasonable basis to identify the expenses in relation to the earning of exempt income; Rule 8D does not apply to AY 2006-07. The assessee has urged that no expenditure has been identified to have been incurred to exempt income. Neither the AO nor the CIT (A) has rebutted this submission. The AO has made an adhoc estimate which is not sustainable in the light of Hero Cycles. Accordingly, in view of Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192 where it was held that if two constructions are possible, one favouring the assessee should be adopted, the precedent laid down in Hero Cycles should be followed. Referred: M/s Vegetable Products Ltd. 088 ITR 0192 (SC) , that in the taxing provision if two constructions are possible, one favouring assessee should be adopted. Followed: CIT vs Hero Cycles Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 0518 (P&H) and Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd vs Dy. CIT (2010) 004 TaxCorp (DT) 46941 (BOMBAY)
ITAT Mumbai held in above case that that since there was no sale, discarding, demolition or destruction of an asset, no adjustment can be made to the Written Down Value (WDV) of the block of assets. Accordingly, the depreciation on goodwill and non-compete fees has to be allowed since these assets already formed part of the block of assets.
In a recent ruling, ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is attracted in the case of a life insurance company. The Tribunal also held that disallowance of software expenses and of expenses incurred for increase in authorised share capital, is not attracted in view of the special provisions of section 44 of the Act read with the relevant rules in the First Schedule to the Act.
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
Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay HC held Rule 8D r.w. S. 14A (2) is not arbitrary or unreasonable and Rule 8D is not retrospective and applies from AY 2008-09, for earlier disallowance can be worked on reasonable basis
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.
ACIT Vs. Kribhco (ITAT Delhi) – Terms ‘exempt income’ and ‘deduction from income’ are two different propositions and, therefore, where assessee’s income was not exempt under section 10 rather same was eligible for deduction under section 80P, assessee’s case was not hit by provisions of section 14A.
Section 14A and Daga Capital can not put assessee in worse position. In other words section 14A disallowance under Rule 8D can not exceed original disallowance made at the time of assessment.
As earlier intimated to you, Writ Petition bearing No. 50 of 2010 (Indian Exporters Grievances Forum & Other vs. CIT) challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 8D has been admitted on 12.1.2010 by Hon’ble Shri Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Shri Justice J.P. Devadhar of the Bombay High Court.
