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>ITA Tribunal directs re-examination of Section 14A disallowance; Penalty deleted for debatable issue</h1> <h3>PTC India Ltd Versus ACIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi, DCIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi And DCIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi Versus PTC India Ltd.</h3> PTC India Ltd Versus ACIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi, DCIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi And DCIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi Versus PTC India Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.2. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax ActAssessment Year 2008-09:The assessee, engaged in trading power and coal, filed its return showing an income of Rs. 174,438,856 and earned dividend income of Rs. 253,850,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the dividend income did not form part of the total income and the assessee did not attribute any disallowance under Section 14A. The AO, dissatisfied with the assessee's claim of minimal managerial expenses, applied Rule 8D and computed disallowance of Rs. 36,274,516 under Section 14A.The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on account of interest but upheld the disallowance at 0.5% under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The ITAT directed the AO to re-examine the disallowance with respect to the investments that earned exempt income during the year, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Limited v. ACIT. The AO was instructed to verify the correctness of the claim based on the Chartered Accountant's certificate and decide afresh.Assessment Year 2009-10:The assessee filed its return showing an income of Rs. 174,438,856 and earned dividend income of Rs. 484,400,000. The AO, dissatisfied with the assessee's disallowance estimate, applied Rule 8D and computed disallowance of Rs. 55,110,363. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 42,974,351. The ITAT directed the AO to consider only those investments that earned exempt income and verify the correctness of the Chartered Accountant's certificate, deciding the issue afresh.Assessment Year 2010-11:The assessee filed its return showing an income of Rs. 947,670,950 and earned dividend income of Rs. 235,150,000. The AO, dissatisfied with the assessee's disallowance estimate, applied Rule 8D and computed disallowance of Rs. 45,830,000. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 43,430,000. The ITAT directed the AO to verify the correctness of the Chartered Accountant's certificate and decide the issue afresh.Issue 2: Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax ActAssessment Year 2010-11:The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 14,761,857 under Section 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was debatable and there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was debatable and the assessee had not furnished incorrect particulars of income.Conclusion:The ITAT directed the AO to re-examine the disallowance under Section 14A for all three assessment years, considering only those investments that earned exempt income and verifying the correctness of the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2010-11 was deleted as the issue was debatable and there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
