2013 (8) TMI 1004 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The undisputed facts are that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of ₹ 13,22,641/- during the year under consideration and claimed that it has incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The Assessing Officer, by applying Rule 8D r.w.s 14A, computed the disallowance of expenditure relating to the exempt dividend income at ₹ 26,88,155/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 2% of the exempt dividend income. The ld. DR could not point out any specific error in the above quoted order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against deletion of disallowance under section 14A - Applicability of Rule 8D - Calculation of expenditure for earning exempt income

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of a disallowance of Rs. 26,88,155 made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A. The crux of the issue was whether the expenditure for earning exempt income should be calculated and disallowed. The assessee received dividend income during the year but claimed no expenditure was incurred for earning it. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D r.w.s 14A to disallow the expenditure. However, the assessee argued that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question based on court judgments.

The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions and restricted the disallowance to 2% of the exempt dividend income. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the investment was made from interest-free funds and relied on court decisions to support the limitation of disallowance. The ld. CIT(A) emphasized that Rule 8D was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. The decision was influenced by the Mumbai High Court ruling that Rule 8D applied only from a specific assessment year.

The Tribunal affirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the assessee had earned exempt income without incurring any specific expenditure. The Tribunal found no error in the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 2% of the exempt income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) based on the reasoning provided in the judgment.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of Rule 8D for calculating expenditure related to earning exempt income under section 14A. The decision highlighted the importance of considering court rulings and factual circumstances to determine the appropriate disallowance percentage. The Tribunal's decision to restrict the disallowance to 2% of the exempt income was upheld, emphasizing the need for a reasonable estimation of expenditure when no specific costs were identified.