9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 912 - AT - Income TaxRestricting the disallowance on account of earning exempt income to 1/3rd by CIT(A) - Held that - Because of the merger of IIPL into the assessee company, the former came to an end as a result of which the shares of amalgamated company were allotted to the share holders of IIPL. Thus, it is clear that there is no change in the management of the Company which remained with the same family (set of persons) who was earlier exercising control. The assessee submitted a list of directors on the Board of the two companies prior to merger as well as the directors on the Board of merged company. It remained in the same hands. Thus, CIT (Appeals) is correct in holding that change in more than 51% was due to merger in two companies. There was no change in control and management. Thus find considerable cogency in the part of the CIT(Appeals) s adjudication wherein he has referred the Circular No. 528 dated 16.12.88 and considered the case of the present merger as akin to death of share holder. Also in the case of death of a living person the shares held by him get transferred to his legal heirs. Similarly when existence of a company is legally finished, the benefit of assets held by it (including shares of other company) will pass on to its shares holders. Under the circumstances, it is fully agreeable with the view of the CIT(Appeals) and do not find any infirmity or illegality in his order. Against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure related to earning exempt income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Applicability of Section 79 regarding the set-off of brought forward losses after a change in shareholding due to amalgamation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Expenditure Related to Earning Exempt Income under Section 14A: Facts and Assessment: - For the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee received substantial tax-free income from dividends and interest on tax-free bonds. - The AO was dissatisfied with the assessee's allocation of Rs. 7,12,094/- out of the total expenditure of Rs. 1,14,17,833/- towards tax-free income and proceeded to compute the disallowance based on the proportion of tax-free income to total turnover, resulting in a disallowance of Rs. 1,13,76,728/-. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Decision: - The CIT(A) found that the AO's method of allocation was flawed as it considered tax-free income as turnover, which is not appropriate since dividends and interest are direct income. - The CIT(A) noted that the allocation methods by both the AO and the assessee were extreme and proposed a balanced approach, attributing 1/3rd of the total expenses to the earning of tax-free income. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that a reasonable estimation was necessary since the prescribed Rule 8D for allocation of expenses under Section 14A was applicable only from the Assessment Year 2008-09. - The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s method of attributing 1/3rd of the total expenses to tax-free income and upheld the disallowance as reasonable. 2. Applicability of Section 79 Regarding Set-Off of Brought Forward Losses: Facts and Assessment: - The AO disallowed the set-off of brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 5,99,88,612/- due to a change in shareholding pattern following the merger of M/s Indrama Investment P Ltd. with the assessee company, citing a violation of Section 79 of the Income Tax Act. - The AO noted that after the merger, the shareholding of Indrama Investment P Ltd. reduced to NIL, leading to a significant change in shareholding. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Decision: - The CIT(A) considered the assessee's argument that the shareholding continued with the same beneficiaries, despite the merger. - Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Italindia Cotton (174 ITR 116), the CIT(A) concluded that Section 79 was not applicable as there was no change in the control and management of the company, which remained with the same family. - The CIT(A) also referred to Circular No. 528 dated 16.12.88, which provided relief in genuine cases of shareholding changes due to events like death or gift, drawing an analogy to the merger situation. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s interpretation that the merger did not result in a change of control and management, as the same family continued to hold the majority shareholding. - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity or illegality in allowing the set-off of brought forward losses, as the change in shareholding was due to the merger and not for tax avoidance purposes. Conclusion: Both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues, confirming the reasonable allocation of expenses related to earning exempt income and the applicability of Section 79 in the context of the merger.
|
