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 clarifies disallowance method under section 14A, adjusts amount, and remits matter for correct computation.</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle 12 (1), New Delhi Versus Hero Moto Corp. Ltd. And Vice-Versa</h3> DCIT, Circle 12 (1), New Delhi Versus Hero Moto Corp. Ltd. And Vice-Versa - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Jurisdiction of the AO to initiate proceedings u/s 147.3. Applicability of Rule 8D for computing disallowance u/s 14A.4. Correctness of disallowance made by the AO.Issue 1: Disallowance u/s 14A:The Revenue appealed against the reduction of addition u/s 14A from Rs. 1,43,06,087 to Rs. 26.21 lac, while the assessee contested the sustenance of the addition. The CIT(A) had earlier restricted the disallowance to 10% of exempt income. The AO, following Rule 8D, computed disallowance at Rs. 1.43 crore. The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable for the year under consideration and directed the AO to apportion expenses based on a reasonable method. The disallowance was adjusted to Rs. 26,21,424 by considering the ratio of dividend income to total turnover. Both parties appealed against the order.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of AO to Initiate Proceedings u/s 147:The assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147, citing the proviso to section 14A. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not pressed this ground in the first round of proceedings, and therefore, could not challenge it in the second round. The Tribunal upheld the previous order and disallowed the ground against the initiation of reassessment.Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 8D for Computing Disallowance:The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying Rule 8D for computing disallowance u/s 14A. Citing the judgment in Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT, it was established that Rule 8D applied only from the assessment year 2008-09. The disallowance was required to be made based on a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment for earlier periods.Issue 4: Correctness of Disallowance Made by AO:Regarding the disallowance made by the AO, the Tribunal found discrepancies. Firstly, the disallowance of interest was not justified as the assessee's own capital exceeded the investments yielding exempt income. Citing judgments, the Tribunal concluded that no disallowance of interest could be made in such circumstances. Secondly, the apportionment of expenses towards exempt income was deemed incorrect. The matter was remitted to the AO to compute disallowance by apportioning expenses in the ratio of exempt income to total income, ensuring the total disallowance did not exceed 10% of exempt income.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The judgment clarified the correct method of computing disallowance u/s 14A and emphasized adherence to legal precedents in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
