DCIT- 5(3)(2), Mumbai v. Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Ltd. [Formerly known as Su-Raj diamond and Jewellery Ltd.]
[Citation -2019-LL-0820-37]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0820-37 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | DCIT- 5(3)(2), Mumbai |
| Respondent Name | Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Ltd. [Formerly known as Su-Raj diamond and Jewellery Ltd.] |
| Court | ITAT-Mumbai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 20/08/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2014-15 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | disallowance of expenses |
| Bot Summary: | Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year in short referred to as AY 2014-15 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax-10 Mumbai, in short referred to as CIT(A) , Appeal No. CIT(A)-10, Mumbai/11101/2016-17 dated 23/03/2018 qua deletion of disallowance u/s 14A. 2 ITA No.3982/Mum/2018 M/s. Winsome Diamonds Jewellery Ltd. Assessment Year :2014-15 2. None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in the business of diamond was assessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) on 26/12/2016 wherein the assessee was saddled with disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.944.61 Lacs in view of the fact that the assessee had made investments. The assessee had not made any suo-moto disallowance u/s 14A and pleaded that since no exempt income was received and no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A would be warranted. Disregarding the same, relying upon CBDT circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11/02/2014, Ld. AO proceeded to compute the disallowance in terms of Rule 8D. The said disallowance, as per Rule 8D, worked out to be Rs.944.61 Lacs which comprised-off of interest disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) for Rs.873.13 Lacs and expense disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) for Rs.71.48 Lacs. The learned first appellate authority observed that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during year under consideration and therefore, no disallowance u/s 14A would be justified. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. |