Appeal dismissed under Income Tax Act; Tribunal's decision upheld.

The High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's decision to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration was upheld, emphasizing the need for evidence of expenditure related to exempted income for disallowance under Section 14A. The Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable and based on factual and legal considerations, leading to the appeal's dismissal and remittance for further assessment in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against ITAT order regarding disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D for assessment year 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the ITAT order dated 18.6.2015 regarding the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D for the assessment year 2009-10. The main issue was whether the disallowance could exceed the exempt income without any specific restriction in the relevant section or rule. The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing and sale of corrugate boxes and sheet, had declared a loss of &8377; 64,455/- for the year. The Assessing Officer disallowed &8377; 4,09,675/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D due to exempt agricultural and dividend income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Deepak Mittal, which emphasized that disallowance under Section 14A requires evidence of expenditure related to exempted income. In this case, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire tax exempt income, which was deemed impermissible. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the matter in accordance with law and provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual position and relevant case law, and the High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's view was considered plausible and based on factual and legal considerations, warranting no interference by the Court. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in line with the legal provisions and principles established in relevant case law.

---