Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Madhava Holdings Private Limited - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (17 Aug 2023)

Errors cannot be perpetuated on the name of consistency

MANU/IH/0192/2023

Direct Taxation

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), ("CIT(A)") in the case of Mandava Holdings Private Limited ("the assessee") for the assessment year 2018-19, Revenue preferred present appeal.

Only issue involved in present case is whether any disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 could be made, if the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration.

There is no dispute that the assessee is a non-banking finance company, making investment in the group companies to meet their business requirements. In such a situation, it is beyond doubt that whenever the investee company declares dividend, such dividend would invariably be earned by the assessee and the assessee alone. It is not a case where only by chance the shares would be in the hands of the assessee when such a dividend is declared. If the assessee holds these shares as stock-in-trade, to be liquidated whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits, then it would be possible that during such holding, the investee company may declare dividend.

It is, therefore, clear that the purpose of assessee holding the shares is not to liquidate when the share price goes up and thereby to earn profit, but the assessee holds such shares in the group companies to meet the business requirements of such companies. Assessee is bound to receive the dividend when it is declared.

Further, it is the settled principle of law, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India that there is no heroism to perpetuate an error and to rectify such an error is a compulsion of the judicial conscious. Errors cannot be perpetuated on the name of consistency. Impugned order is set aside. Appeal of the Revenue is allowed.

Tags : INCOME   ASSESSMENT   DISALLOWANCE  

Share :        
Only issue involved in present case is whether any disallowanc... For read more news from newsroom.manupatra.com"data-action="share/whatsapp/share" class="ic_wtsp-grid">

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved