TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal successful against disallowance under Income Tax Act Sec.143(3) - Investments deemed strategic, not for exempt income.</h1> The appeal was filed against an order under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding disallowance under section 14A. The appellant contested the ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - non recording of satisfaction - dividend received though exempt has already suffered tax u/s 115-O - application of section 14A to income taxable u/s 115JB (MAT) - Held that:- AO had failed to comply with the statutory requirement of recording his satisfaction as to why the claim of disallowance offered by the assessee u/s 14A in its return of income for the year under consideration was not to be accepted, having regard to its accounts - order passed by the A.O in the case before us, is not in conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - hence the disallowance made by the AO cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues:Appeal against order under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance under section 14A, computation of interest amount, inclusion of investments companies liable to pay DDT, applicability of sub-sections of section 14A while computing book profit under section 115JB.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order passed by CIT(A)-52, Mumbai, arising from the order under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs. 48,29,265. The appellant contended that the disallowance was not justified as the investments in group companies were made for strategic purposes and not to earn exempt income. However, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant also challenged the computation of interest amount and the inclusion of investments companies liable to pay DDT. The appellant further argued that the provisions of sub-sections of section 14A were not applicable while computing book profit under section 115JB.During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the appellant had disallowed only a nominal amount under section 14A, contrary to previous years. The Assessing Officer disallowed a significant amount under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the claim of expenses attributed to earning exempt income, as required by law. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case to support their argument. The Tribunal found that the AO did not comply with the statutory requirement of recording satisfaction, as mandated by the Supreme Court's judgment. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deemed unsustainable and was deleted.The Tribunal also addressed the issue of enhancing the book profit under section 115JB by the disallowance made under section 14A. The appellant argued that such enhancement was not permissible, citing a special bench ruling. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both parties and concluded that the disallowance under section 14A should not lead to an increase in the book profit under section 115JB. The appeal of the assessee was allowed based on these findings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
