Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: form 3cd :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India
From the Courts »
  Avtec Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Avtec Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Indus Towers Limited Through: Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Amish Mehta, Chief Financial Officer Vs. Deputy Commissioiner Of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1) & Anr.
 ITO vs. Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Mehsana District Central Co-op Bank Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)
 ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) (Special Bench)
  B.A.Mohota Textiles Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-1 Vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd.
  AAA Paper Marketing Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Lucknow)
 CIT vs. Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 B.A.Mohota Textiles Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (Delhi High Court)
February, 10th 2014

S. 14A disallowance has to be applied while computing book profits under clause (f) of Explanation to s. 115JA

In AY 2000-01 the assessee offered income on the basis of book profits u/s 115JA. The assessee had credited the P&L A/c with dividend income of Rs. 1.57 crore. It claimed that the said dividend had to be excluded while computing the book profits, which was accepted by the AO. The CIT thereafter passed an order u/s 263 in which she claimed that the expenditure incurred to earn the said dividend had to be disallowed under clause (f) of the Explanation to section 115JA while computing the book profits. She estimated the said expenditure at Rs. 1.83 crore. Before the Tribunal the assessee claimed that s. 14A did not apply to AY 2000-01 in view of the Proviso thereof and that in any event s. 14A disallowance could not be made on facts. The Tribunal (32 SOT 101) accepted the contentions and held that (a) two views were possible as to whether s. 14A can apply to AY 2000-01 in view of the Proviso thereof and as the AO’s view is a possible view, the CIT cannot revise u/s 263, (b) clause (f ) of the Explanation to s. 115JA uses the words ‘expenditure relatable to any income’, while s. 14A uses the words ‘expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income’. These words have the same meaning. However, sub-sections (2) & (3) of s. 14A do not find a place in clause (f) and cannot be imported into clause (f) of the Explanation to s. 115JA, (c) the funds of the assessee were mixed. The investments were made in the past and there were no fresh investments during the year, (d) as the capital and free reserve far exceeded the investments, the prima facie presumption was that investment was made out of own funds, (e) the CIT did not bring any material evidence on record to show that the borrowed funds were deployed in the tax-free investments & (f) as no expenditure was incurred for earning dividend income, the same could not be estimated by working out certain formula. On appeal by the department to the High Court HELD reversing the Tribunal:

The assessee’s contention that in view of the Proviso to s. 14A, the said provision could not have been invoked for AY 2000-01 in a revision u/s 263 is not acceptable because the assessment order was passed after section 14A was enacted (Honda Siel Power Products 340 ITR 53 (Del) (approved by SC) followed). The failure of the AO to invoke s. 14A had resulted in the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. On the question of quantum of deduction to be made u/s 14A, the Tribunal has not gone into the said question of quantum. The deduction or quantum has to be decided in light of Maxopp Investment 347 ITR 272 (Delhi)

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Outsourcing Company Offshore Software Outsourcing Software Outsourcing Company India Offshore Outsourcing Company India Software BPO Software Business Process Outsourcing Software Outsourcing India Offsho

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions