TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The assessee challenged the partial upholding of disallowance by the CIT(A) under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) concerning exempt dividend income. The assessee had initially disallowed Rs. 12,50,000 suo moto, attributing it to the expenditure related to earning exempt income. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) computed a higher disallowance of Rs. 1,06,44,550, applying Rule 8D(2)(iii). The CIT(A) reduced this to Rs. 66,42,000 by excluding certain investments.
The assessee argued that the AO failed to record reasons for not being satisfied with the suo moto disallowance, a mandatory requirement under section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide reasons or examine the accounts to justify the additional disallowance, violating the preconditions of section 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1). The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Maxopp Investment Ltd., and Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., supporting the necessity of recording dissatisfaction explicitly.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration, ensuring compliance with section 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1). The AO must provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case and record reasons for any dissatisfaction before invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii).
Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 43BThe assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 46,519 under section 43B for late deposit of employees' contribution to ESIC. The assessee argued that the contribution was deposited within the permissible grace period and before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. and the Bombay High Court's rulings in CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. and CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., which held that contributions paid before the due date for filing the return are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed deposited the contributions before the due date for filing the return, aligning with the judicial precedents. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 46,519 under section 43B was directed to be deleted.
ConclusionThe appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal remitted the disallowance under section 14A back to the AO for fresh consideration, ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements. The disallowance under section 43B was deleted, following the judicial precedents that contributions paid before the due date for filing the return are allowable.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2016.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
