2014 (2) TMI 1149 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D - Held tha - Court observe movement in the investment-which is stated to be in mutual funds, portfolio, so that there has been acquisition as well as disposal of investments during the year. In fact, even as stated by the Tribunal per its said order, the decision-making in its respect (investment) is located at the higher echelons of the management, and which would only be upon expending time and resources. The assessee has clearly not discharged the said initial onus in the instant case, so that the Revenue could not be faulted with for applying rule 8D, which in fact stands applied by the assessee as well, albeit in part - authorised representative, though factually not incorrect while stating before us that the matter stands remitted by the Tribunal back to the file of the Assessing Officer for that year, has in fact, we are afraid to say, mis-represented the facts, inasmuch as the said restoration was only for the limited purpose of working the correct amount of disallowance under rule 8D, observing a difference in the said working (refer paragraph 6.3 of its order). No such conflict or uncertainty inflicts the amount per rule 8D(2)(iii) for the current year, its working at the impugned amount of ₹ 1,29,783 having been furnished by the assessee itself. - Disallowance confirmed - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act in respect of training expenditure of the daughter of the company's chairman-cum-managing director.
2. Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D regarding interest and indirect expenditure on tax-exempt dividend income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act
The appeal raised two issues, the first being disallowance under section 37(1) for training expenditure of the chairman's daughter. The Tribunal had previously remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for earlier years. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter for the current year as well, following the same course as in previous years. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not proper to adjudicate on the matter after setting it aside for earlier years. The issue was factually indeterminate and required further examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for appropriate action.

Issue 2: Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D
Regarding disallowance under section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the initial onus was on the assessee to prove expenditure related to tax-exempt dividend income. The Tribunal referenced previous cases and legal aspects of section 14A. In this case, the assessee had not adequately demonstrated the expenditure incurred, especially concerning investments in mutual funds. The Tribunal observed movement in investments during the year, indicating decision-making at higher management levels. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) as the assessee failed to meet the initial burden of proof. The Tribunal clarified that the restoration for the earlier years was for a specific purpose and did not apply to the current year's disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii).

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, focusing on the specific issues of disallowance under sections 37(1) and 14A read with rule 8D. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper documentation and justification for expenses related to tax matters, ensuring compliance with the Income-tax Act.