2014 (7) TMI 1269 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - expenditure in relation to exempt income - Held that - The expenditure, which has to be disallowed, has to be in relation to exempt income. The assessee before us has demonstrated that expenses incurred by it, to a large extent pertain to amalgamation of ten companies. This expenditure cannot be attributable to the earning of exempt income. This expenditure has to be excluded while computing disallowance u/s 14A with regard to administrative expenses. As a detailed verification is to be done, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. It is for the assessee to make its contentions before the Assessing Officer. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court ) has clearly laid down that no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act, if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income. This proprietary has to be applied by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Application of Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer.
3. Disallowance of administrative expenses.
4. Legal position on disallowance of expenses directly related to earning exempt income.

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 2,62,22,197 under section 14A, arguing that only expenses directly related to earning exempt income can be disallowed. They emphasized that disallowance should not be made on a proportionate or ad hoc basis. The appellant relied on case laws to support their position. The Revenue, however, supported the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that Rule 8D streamlines disallowances to avoid estimation issues. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where disallowances were discussed and concluded that expenses not directly attributable to earning exempt income should not be disallowed under section 14A.

Issue 2: Application of Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D to disallow 0.5% of the average value of investments, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 88,76,330. The appellant argued that most expenses were for statutory compliances related to an amalgamation process and should not be disallowed. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not examine the correctness of the claim regarding these expenses. The Tribunal set aside the issue for fresh adjudication, directing the Assessing Officer to follow the High Court's ruling that no disallowance can be made under section 14A if no expenditure is incurred in relation to exempt income.

Issue 3: Disallowance of administrative expenses:
The appellant did not disallow any amount for administrative expenses, while the Assessing Officer disallowed a portion under Rule 8D. The appellant argued that these expenses were for statutory compliances and should not be disallowed. The Tribunal emphasized that expenses not related to earning exempt income should not be disallowed and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue in line with legal principles.

Issue 4: Legal position on disallowance of expenses directly related to earning exempt income:
The Tribunal highlighted the legal requirement that expenses to be disallowed under section 14A must be directly related to earning exempt income. The Tribunal referred to a High Court ruling stating that no disallowance can be made if no expenditure is incurred in relation to exempt income. This principle guided the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the disallowance of expenses and directed the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the issue considering the legal position on disallowances under section 14A. The judgment emphasized the necessity of expenses being directly attributable to earning exempt income for disallowance purposes.