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>Revenue appeal dismissed; deletion of Section 14A disallowance computed under Rule 8D upheld where no exempt income arose</h1> <h3>The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai Versus M/s. Hyundai Steel India P. Ltd.</h3> ITAT CHENNAI - AT dismissed the Revenue's appeal against deletion of a section 14A disallowance computed under Rule 8D. The AO had disallowed expenses ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - assessee has made investments whose income is not includable in the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- AO invoked the provisions of section 14A and disallowed the expenses determined in accordance with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER] wherein, while dismissing the SLP filed by the Department, it was held that where no exempt income i.e., dividend, was earned in the relevant assessment year by the assessee, section 14A could not be invoked, CIT(A) deleted the addition made u/s 14A of the Act. Against the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above referred case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP preferred by the Department and no other order against the judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was brought on record. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.69,69,630 under section 14A read with Rule 8D, treating investments whose income is not includable in total income as attracting expenditure disallowance. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance by following CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., and the Tribunal noted the Department's SLP against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal observed the holding in Chettinad Logistics that 'where no exempt income i.e., dividend, was earned in the relevant assessment year by the assessee, section 14A of the Act could not be invoked.' The Revenue's plea that a review petition might be filed was unavailing; no order contrary to the High Court judgment was brought on record. The Tribunal condoned a three-day delay in filing the appeal and, on merits, found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the section 14A disallowance, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
