2012 (9) TMI 968 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that - Disallowance made by AO was based on hyper technical approach and also ignoring the essence of Section 14A(1). AO also ignored this fact that the assessee has capitalized substantial amount of interest paid on loans taken for investment and the same was not claimed as business expenses by the assessee. Therefore, the apportionment on a pro rata basis was improper in the absence of anything brought by the Assessing Officer to establish a nexus between the expenses incurred and the exempted income earned on the investment which was a paramount requirement for making a disallowance u/s 14A(1). Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not proper and justified and he limited the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 68,385/-. We are unable to see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D for AY 2007-08.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-V, New Delhi for AY 2007-08, regarding the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 33,07,764 under section 14A in accordance with Rule 8D, but the Commissioner partly allowed the appeal limiting the disallowance to Rs. 68,385 based on the appellant's own calculation. The appellant argued that Rule 8D is effective from AY 08-09 and cannot override section 14A, emphasizing the need to determine actual expenses incurred for earning exempted income rather than applying hypothetical formulas. Various judgments were cited to support the appellant's position, highlighting the non-retrospective nature of Rule 8D and the requirement for a reasonable basis to determine disallowable expenditure under section 14A.

2. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was justified based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in a relevant case, and the disallowance should not have been limited by the Commissioner. The appellant's representative relied on the Supreme Court's decision regarding the non-retrospective application of Rule 8D and presented a judgment from ITAT Delhi in support of the impugned order. The Tribunal observed that Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09, and for earlier years, disallowance under section 14A should be determined based on a reasonable method considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which was not adequately done in this instance.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and legal precedents cited, noting that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was hyper-technical and failed to establish a nexus between expenses incurred and exempted income earned on investments, as required by Section 14A(1). The Commissioner's decision to limit the disallowance to Rs. 68,385 was upheld, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer overlooked the substantial amount of interest paid on loans taken for investment, which was capitalized by the assessee and not claimed as business expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit, and the impugned order limiting the disallowance was justified based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to limit the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs. 68,385 for AY 2007-08.