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>Tribunal Rules on Expenses Related to Exempt Income</h1> <h3>Anbee Constructions Pvt Ltd. Versus ACIT CEN CIR – 29 MUMBAI</h3> Anbee Constructions Pvt Ltd. Versus ACIT CEN CIR – 29 MUMBAI - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of administrative expenses on investment in shares for A.Y 2010-11.2. Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the I.T. Act for A.Y 2011-12.Issue 1: Disallowance of administrative expenses on investment in shares for A.Y 2010-11:The appellant contested the disallowance of administrative expenses by the CIT(A) and AO, claiming it was solely for the purpose of investment in shares. The appellant referred to a previous Mumbai Tribunal order supporting their case. The AO disallowed a significant amount beyond the appellant's claim. The Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Cape Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT highlighted that disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should not exceed actual expenses debited in the Profit & Loss account related to exempt income. The Tribunal found that most expenses were specific to business activities and not directly linked to earning exempt income. Consequently, the disallowance should only cover expenses directly related to exempt income. As the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) were deemed unworkable, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance, following previous decisions. The Tribunal concluded in favor of the appellant, citing consistency with prior rulings.Issue 2: Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the I.T. Act for A.Y 2011-12:The appellant challenged the disallowance made by the CIT(A) under Section 14A for A.Y 2011-12. Given the identical nature of the grounds with the A.Y 2010-11 appeal, the Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant based on the findings of the previous appeal. Consequently, the disallowance of expenses for A.Y 2011-12 was also set aside, aligning with the decision made for A.Y 2010-11.In both cases, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of direct nexus between expenses and exempt income for disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The decisions were based on the principle that disallowances should not exceed actual expenses related to exempt income, as established in previous Mumbai Tribunal rulings.
TaxTMI 