ITAT Holds Estimated Disallowance Under Rule 8D Cannot Justify Penalty; Deletes 6.23 Lakhs Section 270A Penalty:

ITAT Holds Estimated Disallowance Under Rule 8D Cannot Justify Penalty; Deletes 6.23 Lakhs Section 270A Penalty The ITAT Delhi has allowed a
Application of Formula in Rule 8D Does Not Give Rise to Misreporting of Income

ITAT Holds Estimated Disallowance Under Rule 8D Cannot Justify Penalty; Deletes 6.23 Lakhs Section 270A Penalty
The ITAT Delhi has allowed an appeal by deleting the penalty of Rs. 6.23 lakh imposed on Inox Infrastructure Limited under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act and observed that a disallowance calculated as per Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which is based on estimation and a prescribed formula, cannot itself lead to a case of misreporting of income.
The appellant, Inox Infrastructure Limited, declared a total income of Rs 31.28 lakh in the income returns for the assessment year 2017-18. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) calculated another amount of Rs 9.44 lakh in the head of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, consequently assessing the total income at Rs 40.72 lakh. Concurrently, penalty proceedings were initiated against the company. In appeal, the assessee argued that the estimation of disallowance was based on a prescribed formula and therefore could not lead to a penalty for misreporting income unless any concealment of facts is proved. The Tribunal accepted this line of reasoning after noting that the CIT(A) had already directed the Assessing Officer to ensure the disallowance was restricted to the total expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year. Since the quantum addition itself was not final in its original form and required fresh calculation, the penalty could not stand on firm footing.About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2701My Recent Articles
- ITAT Rejects Section 69A Unexplained Money Addition Based on Alleged Over-Invoicing Entry Found in Third-Party SearchPremium
- ITAT Condoned 336-Day Delay in Section 68 Case After Taxpayer Cites Lack Of Online Communication AwarenessPremium
- United Breweries Secures Full Relief from Bombay High Court in Rs 21.92 Crore Service Tax Dispute
- Aries Agro Faces Rs 3.96 Crore GST Demand Over ITC Availment from Retrospectively Cancelled Vendors
- ITAT Restores Appeal Over Rs 9.33 Crore Section 68 Share Application Addition After DTVSV Payment FailurePremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts









