Page | 1
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MA No. 272/Del/2020
(In ITA No.3785/Del/2017
(Assessment Year: 2013-14)
M/s. Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd,
4
th
Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10,
Rouse Avenue, New Delhi
Vs. ACIT,
Circle-20(1),
New Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN:AAACP0458J
Assessee by : Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv
Revenue by: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 05/04/2024
Date of pronouncement 20/08/2024
O R D E R
PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:
1. By virtue of this miscellaneous application, the assessee seeks to recall
the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 3785/Del/2017 dated 29.05.2020.
2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available
on record. We find that this miscellaneous application has been filed to re-
adjudicate the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in
short „ Act‟ ) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short
“Rules”). The assessee is one of the holding company of Dabur India Ltd (DIL)
from whom dividend of Rs. 26.48 crores was received. Out of the total exempt
income received by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 31.88 crores, the assessee
deducted the dividend income from Dabur India Ltd on the ground that no
expenditure was incurred by it for the purpose of earning dividend from Dabur
India Ltd. In fact, the assessee had made suo moto disallowance of expenditure
u/s 14A of the Act in the sum of Rs. 10,82,334/- by applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) of
MA No. 272/Del/2020
M/s. Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd
Page | 2
the Rules, but in the said computation, the assessee had reduced 83%, being
the proportionate share of dividend income received from DIL to the total
exempt income. Accordingly, even though the gross disallowance under Rule
80(2)(iii) worked out to Rs. 63,98,902/-, the assessee ultimately offered only Rs.
10,82,334/- in the return of income as disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with
Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. The ld AO did not accept this claim of the assessee
and proceeded to disallow the deduction claimed in the computation to the tune
of Rs. 53,16,568/- u/s 14A of the Act. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the
ld CIT(A). The Tribunal sustained the order of the ld AO by following the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments reported in
402 ITR 640 (SC). Before us, the ld AR was trying to interpret the applicability of
the decision of the Maxopp Investments to the facts of the instant case by
making long drawn arguments. We find that the long drawn arguments
advanced by the ld AR is only trying to revisit and review the Tribunal order
passed already and the view already taken thereon. None of the arguments
advanced by the ld AR fall within the ambit of any mistake apparent from the
record warranting rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. Hence, we have no
hesitation to hold that the assessee by virtue of this miscellaneous application is
only seeking to review the Tribunal order which is impermissible u/s 254(2) of
the Act.
3. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/08/2024.
-Sd/- -Sd/-
(C. N. PRASAD) (M. BALAGANESH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 20/08/2024
A K Keot
Copy forwarded to
1. Applicant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
MA No. 272/Del/2020
M/s. Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd
Page | 3
5. DR:ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, New Delhi