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 Upholds CIT(A) Decisions on Disallowance Issues</h1> <h3>D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Jaipur. Versus M/s Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd. And M/s Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd. Versus A.C.I.T., Range-2, Jaipur.</h3> D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Jaipur. Versus M/s Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd. And M/s Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd. Versus A.C.I.T., Range-2, Jaipur. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. initially disallowed Rs. 2,76,51,752, which was later restricted to Rs. 16,51,186 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Revenue challenged the reduction, while the assessee contested the sustained disallowance.The assessee argued that it had sufficient interest-free funds for making investments in mutual funds and provided evidence to support this claim. The CIT(A) had earlier sent the evidence to the A.O. for examination, who failed to point out any mistakes or defects in the records produced by the assessee. The A.O. maintained that the assessee used its Over Draft (OD) Account for the investments, implying the use of borrowed funds. However, the balance sheet indicated a decrease in mutual fund investments from Rs. 60.20 crores to Rs. 11.94 crores, which was not disputed by the Revenue.The Tribunal noted that the A.O. did not provide any factual findings in the remand report and merely reiterated the assessment order. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of the assessee's own funds for the investments.Regarding administrative expenses, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the amount of dividend income, following the Tribunal's precedent in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2010-11. The Tribunal found no error in this approach, as it aligned with the principle that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) should not exceed the exempt income.2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The second issue pertains to the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). The A.O. disallowed Rs. 4,52,338, applying a 10% interest rate on the total OD amount of Rs. 45,23,383. The CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to Rs. 49,197, which was the actual interest expenditure on the OD account.The assessee contended that it had sufficient own funds for the investments, and the interest expenditure on the OD facility should not be attributed to mutual fund investments. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the A.O., who again failed to provide specific details or findings. The CIT(A) examined the fund flow position and concluded that the total interest expenses on the OD account were Rs. 49,197.The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the A.O. did not provide any factual findings in the remand report. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of the assessee's own funds and the correct calculation of interest expenses.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both disallowance issues under Sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was pronounced in the open court on 31st January 2020.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
