Disposed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -CENTRAL-3 v. A.T. Invofin India Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC22 Jan 2019ITA/51/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Revenue's appeal under Section 260A, holding that no question of law arose because the Supreme Court had affirmed the relevant High Court precedents regarding Section 14A disallowances.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the appeal was disposed of against the appellant.

What the court decided

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -CENTRAL-3 Vs A.T. Invofin India… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~85

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ITA 51/2019 & CM APPL. 3206-07/2019

¶4

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF

¶5

INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Std. Counsel.

¶6

versus

¶7

A.T. INVOFIN INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through: None

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶10

O R D E R % 22.01.2019

¶11

This is the Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A, questioning the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT]. It is urged that the disallowance directed by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D was justified.

¶12

The investment in question, which were the amounts sought to be disallowed, on account of tax exempt income received by the assessee were subject matter of appeal to the CIT(A).

¶13

The Appellate Commissioner was of the opinion that there was no proper examination of the amounts offered in the explanation given by the assessee, and that consequently in the absence of application of mind by the AO while rejecting the assessee’s position under Section 14A, he did not formed an opinion. The CIT(A)’s views were upheld by the ITAT, which relied

¶14

ITA 51/2019

¶15

page 1 of 2

¶16

upon the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs.Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 347 ITR 272, [ CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC)] and Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 109 (Delhi): (2015) 370 ITR 338.

¶17

We notice that the view expressed in Maxopp Investment (supra) and Taikisha Enigneering (supra) were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2017) 81 Taxmann.com: 111 (SC) (2017) 7 SCC 421.

¶18