Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal overturns disallowance of investment advisory fees, citing Section 14A limits

        Elephant India Finance Pvt. Ltd., Versus DCIT, Circle-11 (1) New Delhi

        Elephant India Finance Pvt. Ltd., Versus DCIT, Circle-11 (1) New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Disallowance of investment advisory fees under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
        2. Disallowance of investment advisory fees under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
        3. Requirement for the assessee to provide service details and justification for the payments made.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Disallowance of Investment Advisory Fees under Section 37(1):

        The primary grievance of the assessee was the disallowance of Rs. 1,20,92,020/- paid to Tusk Investment Fund 1 and Tusk Investment Fund 2 as investment advisory fees. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this amount on the grounds that the assessee failed to provide evidence of services rendered by these funds. The AO contended that the expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, as required under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, emphasizing that the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence to establish the genuineness and reasonableness of the payments. The CIT(A) also highlighted the necessity for the assessee to prove that the expenditure was not capital or personal in nature and was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

        2. Disallowance of Investment Advisory Fees under Section 14A:

        The AO also disallowed the investment advisory fees under Section 14A, which pertains to expenses incurred in relation to earning tax-exempt income. The AO noted that the assessee had claimed dividend income of Rs. 18,48,394/- as exempt under Section 10 of the Act and had already made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 29,44,969/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. However, the AO made an additional disallowance of Rs. 91,47,051/-, arguing that the entire investment advisory fees were related to earning tax-free income. The CIT(A) supported this view, stating that no evidence was provided to show that the advisory services were not solely for earning tax-free income.

        3. Requirement for the Assessee to Provide Service Details and Justification for Payments:

        The CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to provide details of the services received from Tusk Investment Fund 1 and Tusk Investment Fund 2. The assessee argued that the investments were made based on the advisory services provided by these funds and that such payments were made in compliance with tax laws. However, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not submit any evidence regarding the experience and expertise of the funds in the Indian market. The CIT(A) emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and the reasonableness of the payment.

        Judgment:

        The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the AO made the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. It was noted that the assessee had already made a disallowance of Rs. 29,44,969/-, which was more than the exempt income of Rs. 18,48,394/-. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT, which held that disallowance under Section 14A should only be to the extent of the exempt income. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no further disallowance was warranted beyond the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,20,92,020/- made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). The decision was based on the principle that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income, as established by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found