TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the disallowance u/s.14(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) to Rs. 22,82,187/- being the suomotu disallowance done by the assessee itself. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) in this case has made a disallowance of Rs. 10,91,61,614/- u/s.14A of the Act. 4. Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has referred to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd. vs. CIT 59 taxmann.com 295 for the proposition that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. In this view of the matter, he held that the disallowance in this case will not exceed the suomotu disallowance done by the assessee which was more than the exempt income. We may g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 10. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. Consequently, order of the Assessing Officer is set aside. The initiation of penalty proceedings also is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the above directions. The appeal is partly allowed". 6.3 Since the total exempt income earned by the Appellant was only Rs. 44,250/-, therefore, respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai-'F1 Bench in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd (supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee. 8. In this regard, the learned counsel of the assessee relied upon the decision of this tribunal in the case of Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 600 (Mum.), wherein the ITAT has upheld similar proposition by the assessee by referring to Article 265 of the Constitution of India for the proposition that no tax can be collected except through the authority of law. 9. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) on the other hand objected to the ground taken by the assessee in the cross objection. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that the ld. DR does not have any objection to the proposition that disallowance u/s.14A should be restricted to the exempt income earned. However....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that nothing in that order would prevent the ITAT in admitting an additional claim which was raised for the first time without a revised return. Furthermore, we also note here the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Firm [1965] 56 ITR 67(SC) for the proposition that if a particular income is not taxable under the Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shelly Products 129 taxman 271 (SC), supports the proposition that if the assessee has erroneously paid more tax than he was legally required to do, he is entitled to claim the refund, as otherwise it would b....