TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Mumbai limits disallowance to dividend income under section 14A for AY 2010-2011</h1> <h3>M/s. Delux Polymers Private Limited Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai.</h3> M/s. Delux Polymers Private Limited Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai. - TMI Issues: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8DAnalysis:The appeal before the ITAT Mumbai concerned the disallowance of &8377; 14,73,973 under section 14A read with Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2010-2011. The AO observed that the appellant had earned exempt income through dividends but had not made any disallowance u/s.14A in its income computation. The AO applied Rule 8D(2)(iii) to calculate the disallowance of administrative expenses. The learned CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appellant's appeal before the ITAT.Upon hearing both parties, the ITAT considered the appellant's argument that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income, citing decisions from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The appellant also referred to a previous decision in their favor by the CIT(A) for another assessment year. In contrast, the Departmental Representative relied on a decision by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Ltd.The ITAT analyzed the precedents and noted that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. had followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. The ITAT agreed with the appellant's argument that the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed the amount of dividend income earned, emphasizing that no contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court was presented. The ITAT distinguished the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Ltd., stating it did not dispute this proposition.Consequently, the ITAT held that the disallowance u/s 14A in the present case should not exceed the dividend income of &8377; 314. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with the order pronounced on September 7, 2017.
TaxTMI 