| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3337 (Mad-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 260A
Considering the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1403 (SC), Madras High Court had held that such questions cannot be canvassed, as decision rendered by Supreme Court would cover those questions. Therefore, substantial question of law was answered against the assessee.
|
Appeal (High Court) - Disallowance under section 14A - Expenditure incurred against earning of exempted income -
Assessee-company had made investment for the purpose of earning dividend income which was exempt and incurred expenditure in relation to earning of exempted income. AO disallowed the expenses incurred under section 14A by invoking rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Held: Considering the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1403 (SC), Madras High Court had held that such questions cannot be canvassed, as decision rendered by Supreme Court would cover those questions. Therefore, substantial question of law was answered against the assessee.
Followed:Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1403 (SC)Relied:CIT v. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 98 CCH 151 (Mad) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1144 (Mad-HC) Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (2016) 97 CCH 219 (Mad) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0345 (Mad-HC) DCIT v. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1483/Chny/2019, dt. 29-11-2019] The Dy.CIT v. Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.710/Chny/2018, Cross Objection No.65/Chny/2018, dt. 1-8-2018]
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. : 2013-14
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 260A
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|