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>ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decisions on Disallowances under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad Versus Sintex Industries Ltd</h3> Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad Versus Sintex Industries Ltd - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2007-08.2. Deletion of disallowance under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13.3. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 14A for A.Y. 2007-08:The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted Rs. 1,65,41,164 out of the total disallowance of Rs. 1,96,29,279 made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment resulted in a disallowance of Rs. 3,08,01,115 under Section 14A, which was partially allowed by CIT(A). The ITAT remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO, considering judgments from non-jurisdictional High Courts, computed the disallowance at Rs. 1,92,13,175. Upon appeal, CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,88,115, reasoning that the AO could not exceed the original disallowance as reduced by CIT(A) and that Rule 8D was not applicable retrospectively. The ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's application of Rule 8D was incorrect for the assessment year in question and that the disallowance should be reasonable based on facts.2. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 80IC for A.Y. 2012-13:The revenue contested CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to interest and finance charges, salary expenses, common expenses, and expenses of the corporate and plastic division for the Nalagarh unit. The AO had proportionately allocated these expenses based on sales ratios, leading to additional disallowances. CIT(A) followed the ITAT's decisions for previous years (2009-10 and 2010-11), which favored the assessee's method of allocation based on investment ratios. The ITAT confirmed CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's method of allocating expenses was justified and consistent with earlier rulings. The ITAT emphasized that the AO's allocation based on sales ratios was not a scientific method and upheld the deletion of additional disallowances.3. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 14A for A.Y. 2012-13:The revenue challenged CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 24,36,72,136 made by the AO under Section 14A. The AO had applied Rule 8D, resulting in a substantial disallowance, which the assessee contested, arguing that investments were made from surplus funds and not borrowed funds. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, referencing ITAT's decisions for previous years and recognizing that the assessee had sufficient surplus funds. The ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, reiterating that Rule 8D could not be applied retrospectively and that the AO had not demonstrated dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim. The ITAT noted that the assessee's method of calculating disallowance was reasonable and consistent with judicial precedents.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed both appeals filed by the revenue, affirming CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The judgments emphasized the importance of reasonable and fact-based disallowances, adherence to judicial precedents, and the non-retrospective application of Rule 8D. The ITAT's rulings were consistent with previous decisions in similar cases involving the same assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
