TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 9, 2021, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.499/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. The Revenue has raised the following substabtial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to confirm the CIT(A)'s action of deleting the addition under section 14A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessing officer has failed to give cogent reasons of dissatisfaction regarding the computation of the disallowance? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance under section 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment. We are of the opinion that the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant. No doubt, the assessee like Maxopp Investment Limited may have made the investment in order to gain control of the investee-company. However, that does not appear to be a relevant factor in determining the issue at hand. The fact remains that such dividend income is non-taxable. In this scenario, if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer." Two important issues have been pointed out in the aforementioned decision. Firstly that the provisions of section 14A has to be interpreted, particularly, the words that "in relation to the income" that does not form part of total income. Therefore, it was held that the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is incorporated in section 14A of the Act. With regard to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch a claim has to be examined by the Assessing Officer and only if an objective satisfaction is arrived at by the Assessing Officer that the claim made by the assessee cannot be accepted, the Assessing Officer can then proceed to apply computation mode as provided in rule 8D(2) of the Rules. we also take into consideration the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC); [2017] 7 SCC 421, wherein it was held that the law postulates the recording of satisfaction as the requirement ot be complied with by the Assessing Officer. The law on the subject as noted has been reiterated in several subsequent decisions as well, and, therefore, the issue has to be decided by the....