9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1165 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that - The payment of interest amounting to ₹ 2,90,95,369/- to Bank of India on account of loan taken of ₹ 30 crores by the assessee during earlier years, which was evident from the sanctioned letter of Bank of India dated 18.05.2006 addressed to the assessee of the credit facilities and terms conditions mentioned therein in the annexure attached to the same. Thus, the aforesaid amount of loan of ₹ 30 crores had exclusively been assigned with respect to purchase of wind mill from M/s. Enercon was found undisputed. The assessee has also credited an amount of ₹ 7,56,61,095/- on account of sale of power and has also shown profit of ₹ 4,77,10,734/- in Profit Loss Account from wind mill business. As observed that the aforesaid interest could not be held to be in any way to be related to the earning of exempt income either directly or indirectly. Disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of ₹ 77,78,214/- was allowed out of 1,30,30,180/-. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. Disallowance of expenditure on helicopter - CIT(A) following the decision of ITAT in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2005-06, has restricted the disallowance on helicopter expenditure to 1/7th - Held that - It is true that the onus is on the assessee to substantiate the claim of the assesses. Considering the peculiar circumstances better known to the assessee, there is surrender of claim to the extent of 1/7th of the total claims ₹ 93,96,771/- (i.e. ₹ 66,04,980/- on account of depreciation of vehicles and ₹ 27,91,791/- on account of aviation expenses). At this point of time, in our opinion, the Onus has shifted to the revenue to demonstrate that the said surrender is incorrect and estimations made by the AO are fair within the meaning of section 38(2) of the Act. Fairness is an important factor in matters of quantification of the disallowances, when section 38(2) invoked. The revenue has not done any probe independently to demonstrate that assessee s offer is unfair and his estimations are fair. The estimations made by the AO, which are confirmed in case of the Cessna Aircraft and altered in case of Bell Helicopter are hereby set aside. Thus e are not inclined to interfere with the finding of CIT(A), who has restricted the disallowance on helicopter expenditure to 1/7th. - Decided against revenue. Estimation of annual value of let out property at Mumbai - Held that - The assessee has let out space to the sister concern, which is undisputed fact and is receiving ₹ 10,000/- per month from each sister concern. Therefore, the assessee's property is covered by provisions of clause (b) of section 23(1). This is a fact that assessee's actually rent received or receivable in respect of the said property is not in excess of the ALV computed under clause (a) of section 23(1). AO's decision to invoke a comparable case to the property covered under clause (b) is not in tune with the above referred legal position. It is not also the case of the AO that assessee is covered by the exemptions provided in the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and, therefore, ALV of the property shall be determined on the basis of the comparable cases. In any case, the standard rent is upper limit for determination the ALV as held in the case of Makrupa Chemicals Pvt Ltd (2006 (9) TMI 207 - ITAT BOMBAY-F ) - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 77,78,214/- computed under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules out of interest paid. 2. Nexus between interest paid on loans invested in windmills and income from exempt investments. 3. Disallowance of helicopter expenses restricted to 1/7th instead of 1/5th. 4. Disallowance of depreciation on helicopter restricted to 1/7th instead of 1/5th. 5. Disallowance of depreciation on helipad building restricted to 1/7th instead of 1/5th. 6. Deletion of addition under "Income from House Property" due to low rent shown by the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Rs. 77,78,214/- Computed Under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules Out of Interest Paid: The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 1,30,30,180/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, stating that the interest expenditure was related to exempt income. The CIT(A) allowed Rs. 77,78,214/- of this disallowance, noting that the interest was incurred for the windmill business, which was not exempt. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the interest on the loan taken for the windmill was not related to earning exempt income. 2. Nexus Between Interest Paid on Loans Invested in Windmills and Income from Exempt Investments: The AO argued a nexus between the interest on the loan for the windmill and the exempt income from investments in shares, mutual funds, and partnership firms. The CIT(A) found that the assessee maintained separate accounts for different businesses, and the interest on the windmill loan could not be linked to the exempt income. The Tribunal agreed, noting the clear separation in the assessee's financial records. 3. Disallowance of Helicopter Expenses Restricted to 1/7th Instead of 1/5th: The AO disallowed 1/5th of the helicopter expenses, but the CIT(A) restricted it to 1/7th, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2005-06. The Tribunal upheld this, noting that the revenue did not demonstrate that the assessee's offer of 1/7th was unfair. 4. Disallowance of Depreciation on Helicopter Restricted to 1/7th Instead of 1/5th: Similar to the helicopter expenses, the AO disallowed 1/5th of the depreciation on the helicopter, while the CIT(A) restricted it to 1/7th. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the same reasoning as for the helicopter expenses. 5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Helipad Building Restricted to 1/7th Instead of 1/5th: The AO disallowed 1/5th of the depreciation on the helipad building, but the CIT(A) restricted it to 1/7th. The Tribunal upheld this decision, in line with the reasoning for the helicopter expenses and depreciation. 6. Deletion of Addition Under "Income from House Property" Due to Low Rent Shown by the Assessee: The AO added income under "Income from House Property," arguing that the rent shown by the assessee for a property in Mumbai was far below the reasonable market rent. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, referencing the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the actual rent received or receivable should be considered unless it is less than the standard rent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the revenue did not prove that the standard rent was higher than the rent shown by the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The judgment emphasized the importance of clear separation in financial records and adherence to established legal precedents.
|
