9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 1061 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A - Held that - Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that if the interest free funds are available to an assessee sufficient to meet with investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest free funds available. In the present case before us considering the finding of co-ordinate Bench and of the CIT (A). it can be presumed that assessee was having sufficient funds for investments. In view of these facts and respectfully following the decision of High Court we are of the view that in the present case no interference is called for in the order of CIT (A) with respect to the disallowance pertaining to disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 15, 50, 415/-. With respect to the disallowance of Rs. 1, 39, 125/-on account of administrative expenses the factual position is that the assessee has stated it has not incurred any administrative expenditure A.O. has also not given a finding to the effect that the assessee has incurred expenditure towards exempt income.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A. 2. Disallowance of administrative expenses under section 14A. Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A The appeal involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 15,50,415 under section 14A by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The Revenue contended that the investments made by the assessee in a sister concern were aimed at earning exempt dividend income, justifying the disallowance. However, the CIT (A) partially allowed the appeal by deleting the interest disallowance. The CIT (A) observed that there was no evidence of interest-bearing funds being utilized for tax-free income and referred to previous orders supporting the assessee's claim. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing the need for the A.O. to prove the misuse of interest-bearing funds. The ITAT concluded that the disallowance of Rs. 15,50,415 on interest expenditure was unjustified, as the investments were made from own funds without a direct nexus to borrowed funds. Issue 2: Disallowance of administrative expenses under section 14A Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 1,39,125 for administrative expenses under section 14A, the Revenue challenged the CIT (A)'s decision. The Revenue argued that Rule 8D applied irrespective of the year of investment, emphasizing the intention behind the investments. However, the assessee contended that the investments were made in the normal course of business from own funds, with no new investments post the relevant assessment year. The ITAT, relying on precedents and the balance sheet, agreed with the assessee. It held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments, thus dismissing the disallowance of administrative expenses. The ITAT emphasized the need for a finding of incurring expenditure for disallowance under section 14A, which was lacking in this case. Cross Objection: The cross objection was connected to the main issues and was decided in favor of the assessee. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross objection. The decision was based on the factual demonstration of investments from own funds and the absence of evidence supporting the disallowances. The ITAT's ruling aligned with previous judgments and upheld the principle of requiring concrete findings for disallowances under section 14A. In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment favored the assessee by dismissing the Revenue's appeal and allowing the cross objection, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a direct link between expenses and exempt income for disallowances under section 14A.
|
