The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.
ACIT vs. Iqbal M. Chagala (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 14A & Rule 8D cannot be applied in a mechanical manner. Disallowance cannot exceed expenditure claimed as a deduction
The assessee had debited direct expenses on account of dematerialization and STT in the capital account and not in the Profit and loss account. The AO had presumed that the assessee had must have incurred some expenditure under the heads salary, telephone and other administrative charges for earning the exempt income. It is further found that the total expenditure claimed by the assessee for the year is about 13 lakhs and the AO had made a disallowance of about Rs.16 lakhs. He has just adopted the formula of estimating expenditure on the basis of investments. But, the justification for calculating the disallowance is missing. The assessee had not claimed any expenditure in its P&L account and so the onus was on the AO to prove that out of the expenditure incurred under various heads were related to earning of exempt income. Not only this he had to give the basis of such calculation. In any manner disallowance of Rs.16.35 lakhs as against the total expenditure of Rs.13 lakhs claimed by the assessee in P&L account is not justified. Rule 8D cannot and should not be applied in a mechanical way. Facts of the case have to be analyzed before invoking them. Consequently the disallowance is deleted (Justice Sam P. Bharucha 53 SOT 192 (Mum) referred)
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
ACIT vs. M. Baskaran (ITAT Chennai)
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income. Cheminvest (SB) &CBDT Circular are not good law
No comments:
Post a Comment