2016 (9) TMI 1323 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The disallowance would have to be on a reasonable basis for Assessment Year 2000-01 as directed by this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). The disallowance at 1% by the impugned order of the Tribunal is not shown to be in any manners perverse and/or arbitrary. Allowable business expenditure - repair and renovation expenditure - Held that - The expenses claimed were normal repair and renovation expenditure. Therefore, allowable as revenue expenditure. This finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse in any manner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income
2. Disallowance of depreciation in lease transactions
3. Disallowance of expenses treated as capital nature
4. Reasonable basis for disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income:
The Tribunal's order was challenged by the Revenue regarding the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income. The Tribunal had restricted the disallowance to 1% of administrative expenses based on the judgment in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was not arbitrary and upheld the disallowance as reasonable for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The Court found no substantial question of law in this regard and dismissed the appeal.

2. Disallowance of depreciation in lease transactions:
The Revenue raised questions regarding the disallowance of depreciation in lease transactions. However, the Counsel for the Revenue acknowledged that similar questions had been addressed in a previous appeal and were found not to raise substantial questions of law. Consequently, the Court did not entertain these questions in the current appeal.

3. Disallowance of expenses treated as capital nature:
The Revenue contested the deletion of disallowance of expenses treated as capital in nature. The Court referred to a previous decision where expenses for office necessities were considered as revenue expenditure. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concluded that the expenses were normal repair and renovation expenditures, thus allowable as revenue expenditure. The Court found no substantial question of law in this matter and dismissed the appeal.

4. Reasonable basis for disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was discussed, focusing on the reasonable basis for disallowance. The Court emphasized that the disallowance should be on a reasonable basis as directed in previous judgments. The Court highlighted the importance of submissions made by the Respondent-Assessee in determining the disallowance amount. As no such submission was made in this case, the disallowance at 1% by the Tribunal was considered reasonable for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The Court found no substantial question of law in this regard and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial questions of law were raised in the issues presented.