9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1287 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A - computation of deduction - Held that - Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Private Limited 2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that by no stretch of imagination can section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of dividend income of .1, 83, 000/- received for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and compute the income accordingly.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer, and the subsequent challenge by the Revenue regarding the restriction of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D: - The Assessing Officer invoked section 14A r.w. Rule 8D due to the assessee claiming dividend income as exempt while debiting substantial interest and bank charges to the Profit and Loss Account. - The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to prove that interest-bearing funds were not used for investments, leading to disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). - On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) reevaluated the disallowance, considering that interest debited was not related to borrowed funds for investments, leading to a reduced disallowance of &8377;.5,10,601/-. - The Ld.CIT(A) correctly noted that the Assessing Officer erred in calculating the disallowance based on total investment value instead of average values, resulting in the revised disallowance amount. - The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s computation, stating that it was proper and justified. Issue 2: Limitation on Disallowance Amount: - Various legal precedents were cited, emphasizing that the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. - The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decisions highlighted that the disallowance should not surpass the amount of exempt income. - The Coordinate Bench also reiterated this principle in the case of Sanghavi Exports International P. Ltd v. ACIT, directing that the disallowance should not exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee. - Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of the dividend income received, which was &8377;.1,83,000/- for the relevant Assessment Year. Additional Ground: Violation under Rule 46A: - The Revenue contended a violation under Rule 46A, alleging that the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity to examine additional evidence submitted by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). - However, as the Revenue failed to specify the nature of the additional evidence during the proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed this ground due to lack of substance. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, while the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed based on the aforementioned analysis and legal interpretations.
|
