2017 (5) TMI 1482 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under section 14A - Held that - We direct Ld. AO to recompute disallowance under section 14A restricting to exempt income only as per ratio laid down by Hon ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Cheminvest Ltd versus CIT 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Maxop Investment Ltd.Vs. CIT(A) 2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court Consultancy expenses allowance - Held that - Assessee has incurred similar expenses in the preceding assessment years, which has not been disputed by Ld. AO. In fact for A. Y. 2006-07, which has been argued before us, no such disallowances have been observed to have been made by Ld. AO. Ld. AO has also not disputed the consistent method of allocation of consultancy in the preceeding assessment years. When there is no change in the business of assessee consultancy expenses incurred towards consultancy charges to an extent of 25% cannot be disallowed. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest paid under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of ad hoc expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of consultancy charges under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Interest Paid under Section 40A(2):

The appellant challenged the disallowance of interest paid amounting to ?9,84,375/- under Section 40A(2) on the grounds that it was allegedly excessive. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the appellant had received share application money from Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., which was later converted into a loan at an interest rate of 12.25% per annum. The AO compared this rate with the 10% interest rate on intercorporate deposits given to other companies and deemed the interest excessive by 2.25%, leading to the disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the AO compared borrowing rates with lending rates, which is inappropriate under Section 40A(2)(b). The AO did not provide any material evidence to support the claim that the interest rate was excessive compared to the market rate. The Tribunal held that the onus was on the AO to establish that the expenses were excessive, which was not done. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified and was overturned.

2. Disallowance of Ad Hoc Expenses under Section 14A:

The appellant contested the disallowance of ?68,530/- under Section 14A, which was computed by the AO on dividend income and long-term capital gains. The appellant argued that long-term capital gains should not be considered for disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant and directed the AO to recompute the disallowance, excluding long-term capital gains, and restricting it to exempt income only, in line with the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT and Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT.

3. Disallowance of Consultancy Charges under Section 37(1):

For the assessment year 2008-09, the appellant challenged the disallowance of consultancy charges amounting to ?16,44,711/-. The appellant argued that these expenses were necessary for their real estate development business and were apportioned between capitalized and revenue expenses. The Tribunal observed that similar expenses were incurred in preceding years without disallowance and that the appellant provided sufficient evidence, including agreements and tax details of consultants.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not dispute the consistent method of expense allocation in previous years and that the consultancy expenses were necessary for the appellant's business. Citing the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printers, the Tribunal emphasized consistency in tax treatment across assessment years. Consequently, the disallowance of consultancy charges was deemed unjustified and was overturned.

Conclusion:

The appeals for both assessment years were partly allowed. The disallowance of interest under Section 40A(2) was overturned, and the AO was directed to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A, excluding long-term capital gains. The disallowance of consultancy charges was also overturned, recognizing the necessity and consistency of such expenses in the appellant's business operations.