Appeal dismissed: ITAT decision upheld, voluntary disallowance exceeds dividend income, satisfying Section 14A.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ITAT's decision favoring the assessee. It affirmed that the voluntary disallowance exceeded the dividend income, satisfying Section 14A requirements. The court found no error in ITAT's interpretation of CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 and the application of law for stock in trade investments, ruling against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues:
1) Challenge to order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 14A
2) Application of law for investment in stock in trade
3) Interpretation of CBDT Circular No. 5/2014

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the ITAT order dated 10.06.2019 regarding the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act by the assessing authority. The key question was whether the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee would suffice under Section 14A, even if the conditions for invoking the section were met. The ITAT held that the voluntary disallowance by the assessee, exceeding the dividend amount earned, met the legal requirements of Section 14A. The court found no error in this decision and dismissed the appeal in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the application of law for investment in stock in trade, as laid out by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Maxopp Investments Ltd. The Revenue argued that the AO's application of Rule 8-D was correct, while the assessee contended that the disallowance made voluntarily was sufficient. The court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that the disallowance amount exceeded the dividend earned, supporting the assessee's position.

Issue 3:
The final issue pertained to the interpretation of CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014. The ITAT did not distinguish the law applicable for investment in stock in trade as per the Supreme Court's ruling. The court noted that the disallowance amount of Rs. 30.23 crores exceeded the dividend income of Rs. 2.50 crores, affirming the ITAT's decision and ruling in favor of the assessee. The court found no error in the ITAT's judgment and dismissed the appeal, answering the questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no costs imposed.

---