JEEVAN LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5121/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71741 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: C Y TOPRANI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, TS TSTS TS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - J BENCH MUMBAI , , / , BEFORE S/SH. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMB ER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 5121/M/2012, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 JEEVAN LTD. BAJAJ BHAVAN, 226, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400021 VS. DCIT 3(2) MUMBAI. PAN: AAACJ1656Q ( #$ / REVENUE ) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) #$ #$ #$ #$ ' ' ' ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI C.Y.TOPRANI %&#$ ( ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P.SINGH ! ! ! ! ( (( ( )* )* )* )* / DATE OF HEARING : 02-12-2013 +,' ( )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02- 12- 2013 ! ! ! ! , 1961 ( (( ( 254 (1) )-) )-) )-) )-) . . . . ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2012 OF THE CIT(A )-4, MUMBAI, ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : (A)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,55,10,918 UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. (B)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (THE RULES) FOR COMPUTING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. (C)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE WORKING OF DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON A REASONABLE BASIS AND WHI CH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. (D)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT EVEN IF DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE AS PER RULE SD OF THE RULES, THE DEBIT BALA NCE OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT . (E)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT EVEN IF DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE RULES, THE SAME OUGHT TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. (F)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT EVEN IF DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE RULES, THE SAME OUGHT,NOT TO BE COMPUTED ON THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF EARNING T AXABLE INCOME. (G)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT OUGHT NOT TO EXCEED THE INCOME CLAIMED EXEMPT BY THE APPELLANT. 2 ITA NO. 5121/MUM/2012 JEEVAN LTD. THE APPELLANT HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AMPLIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 .DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUHTORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WISH TO PRESS T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL,THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEDED TO.AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PERUSING THE APPEAL,THEREFORE,WE ALLOW IT WITHDRAW THE SAME. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY STANDS DISMISSED. 0 1 !0) ! 2 3 ( - ! ) ( ) 45 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND DECEMBER, 2013 . ( +,' 6 7! 02 FNLACJ ,2013 , ( - 8 SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 7! / DATE: 2 ND DECEMBER, 2013 SK . . . . ( (( ( %) %) %) %) :') :') :') :') / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT/ #$ 2. RESPONDENT/ %&#$ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ; < 4. THE CONCERNED CIT/ ; < 5. DR J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / =- %)! TS TSTS TS , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ - > &) %) //TRUE COPY// .! .! .! .! / BY ORDER, ? ?? ? / 4 4 4 4 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI