Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

Grounds raised by the assessee are that within the facts and circumstances of thecaseand the law on the point, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of claim of Bad debt of Rs. 77,98,88,400/- caused by learned Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act read with section 36(2) of the Act under the head ‘Income from Business and profession’, as claimed by the appellant, and instead upholding the amount of claim of the appellant as assessed by the Learned Assessing Officer under the head ‘Income from Capital Gains’

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 14A, 28, 36, 45, 50C of Income Tax act, 1961— Business Income - The assessee’s case before the ld. CIT (A) was that it has made investment in the subsidiary companies due to business expediency and had only made investment of Rs. 4,54,065/- in mutual funds. CIT (A) agreed with the contention of the assessee and deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue holding that ”firstly the dividend yielding investment were only Rs. 4,54,065/- and disallowance @ 0.5% worked out to Rs. 2196/- which has been suo motu offered for disallowance in the return of income. This Tribunal in assessee’s own case had held that average value of investment which has yielded income during the year shall only be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s.14A, and therefore, respectfully following the same no addition over and above can be made. In any case, the dividend income received by the assessee is merely Rs. 29,070/- which in any case the disallowance could not have been exceeded the exempt income“. - ANANT RAJ LIMITED V/s ASSTT. CIT - [2020] 206 TTJ 001 (ITAT-DELHI)