2015 (1) TMI 1205 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In the present case, the CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance out of interest expenditure by following the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Limited vs. JCIT (2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ). We have seen that in the present case, this judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court is not applicable because the assessee is not dealer in shares. This is not shown by the assessee before us or before any of the authorities below that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee was directly relatable to taxable income and therefore, in the facts of the present case, Rule 8D is applicable with regard to such interest expenditure. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance as per Rule 8D and hence, we reverse the order of CIT(A) in both the years and restore that of the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
2. Justification of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decisions.
3. Application of Rule 8D for disallowance.

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10:
The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner erred in ignoring the unsettled nature of the issue, citing a Kolkata High Court decision. The Tribunal noted that while previous Tribunal decisions favored the assessee for other years, Rule 8D was applicable for the current assessment years. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the assessee's activities based on financial statements and held that the assessee was an investor in shares, not a dealer. The Tribunal rejected the application of a Karnataka High Court decision cited by the assessee, as it was not applicable to the current case. The Tribunal also examined the treatment of shares as inventories and other qualitative details in the financial statements to determine the nature of the assessee's activities.

Issue 2: Justification of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decisions:
The Commissioner's decisions to treat the expenditure as revenue expenditure without providing reasoning or case law were challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's orders lacked justification and were erroneous in law and on facts. The Tribunal, therefore, vacated the Commissioner's orders and restored those of the Assessing Officer based on the application of Rule 8D for disallowance under section 14A.

Issue 3: Application of Rule 8D for disallowance:
The Tribunal considered the application of Rule 8D for disallowance under section 14A. The Revenue supported the Assessing Officer's order, citing the Tribunal's decision in a previous case. The Tribunal noted that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee was not directly related to taxable income and, therefore, Rule 8D was applicable. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's decision and upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Rule 8D. Consequently, both appeals of the Revenue were allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing the application of Rule 8D for disallowance under section 14A and rejecting the Commissioner's decisions based on lack of justification and erroneous interpretation of facts and law.