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: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: VAT Audit
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

India Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Taxation Department, L&T House, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020 Vs DCIT Cir 2(2), R.No.577, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400020
April, 03rd 2014
                         
              INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - `I' BENCH.
       
        Before S/Sh.I.P.Bansal, Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
          /.ITA No.1168/Mum/2011,[ [/Assessment Year-2007-08
          India Infrastructure Developers Ltd.,         DCIT Cir 2(2), R.No.577,
          Taxation Department, L&T House,               5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,
          N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate,             Vs      M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400020
          Mumbai-400020
          PAN: AAACI4598Q

                   (/ Appellant)                          (× / Respondent)

                 [   / Assessee by                          : Ms. Heena Doshi
                    / Revenue by                            : Shri Ashok Suri
                     / Date of Hearing                          : 01-04-2014
                      / Date of Pronouncement : 01-04-2014
                   , 1961   ( 1 ) 254   Û[    
                     Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act)
Per Rajendra,AM     Û]                       :
Challenging the order dt. 02.11.2010 of the CIT(A)-5,Mumbai, assessee-company has filed
following Grounds of Appeal :
        1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of
       Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of the Act even
       though income claimed as exempt during the year is NIL.
       2.The appellant company craves leave to add to, alter or modify any of the above grounds of
       appeal.
2.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of leasing and investment,filed its return of income
on 06.01.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 54.75 Crores.Assessing Officer (AO) finalised the
assessment on 30.11.2009 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 56.49 Crores.
During the assessment proceedings, AO found that assessee had shown investment of Rs. 66.68
Crores in tax-free-bonds and shares of companies, that income from said investments was not
includible in the total income as per the provisions of chapter III of the Act. He asked the assessee
to claim as to why the expenses should not be disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act r.w.Rule 8D of
Income Tax Rule 1962 (Rules).After considering the submissions of the assessee, he worked out
the disallowance in terms of clause (iii) of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8D @ half percent of the average
value of total investment .




3.In the appellant proceedings, assessee-company argued that it had not earned and claimed as
exempt and dividend income on investments,that question of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act did
not arise at all. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. After considering the submission of the assessee and the
assessment order, First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that main thrust of section 14A of the Act
was on disallowance of expenditure incurred on the value of investment that yielded exempt
income arising out of shares, bonds and mutual funds etc, that the focus of disallowance was on
expenditure on the source of investments, that the provisions of section 14A would come into play
                                        2            ITA No.1168/Mum/2011 India Infrastructure Developers Ltd.



irrespective of the fact whether the investment yielded income or not. He relied upon the decision
of the special bench of ITAT Delhi delivered in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (317 ITR 86-80).
Referring to the decision of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., he held that provisions of
Rule 8D would apply from Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 only, that prior to AY 2008-09 AO
had to adopt a reasonable basis or methods for making disallowance.

4.Before us, Authorised Representative (AR) fairly conceded that the matter is issued against the
assessee by the decision of the special bench of Delhi Tribunal. Departmental Representative
(DR) supported the order of the FAA.
5.After considering the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that FAA has followed the decision of the said bench of Delhi ITAT as well as the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., he had directed the AO to work out the disallowance in terms of the directions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, in our opinion, his order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.Respectfully, following the above referred order of the Bombay High Court, we decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee. As a result,appeal filed by the assessee-company stands dismissed. [ . Order pronounced in the open court on 1st April,2014. Û 01 ,2014 Sd/- Sd/- (.. /I.P. Bansal) (Û]/Rajendra) Û /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Mumbai,/Date: 01.04.2014. SK /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee / 2. Respondent /× 3. The concerned CIT(A)/ ,4.The concerned CIT / 5. DR "I" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai / vkbZ ,..Û. 6. Guard File/[ × //True Copy// / BY ORDER, / Dy./Asst. Registrar , /ITAT, Mumbai
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - About Us

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