2012 (11) TMI 218 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - held that - Disallowance u/s 14A is contemplated in respect of exempt income and not which is eligible for deduction under any relevant provision. It is impermissible to mix both the deduction and exemption provisions and then take them in one stride for computing disallowance u/s 14A. Therefore, the authorities below were not justified in placing the exemption provision and deduction provision on one platform for the purpose of making disallowance under this section. Since sections 10AA and 80IAB are deduction provisions and not exemption provisions , the investment or expenses incurred to earn income from SEZ do not merit reckoning in computing disallowance u/s 14A - Impugned order on this count is set aside and remit the matter to the file of A.O. for making disallowance u/s 14A on some reasonable basis - In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the disallowance of Rs. 52,15,454 under section 14A of the Income-tax Act. The assessee claimed exemption for dividend income without offering any disallowance under section 14A. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance based on rule 8D, allocating interest costs and other expenses. The contention that investment in SEZ should not be considered for disallowance was rejected. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

Upon review, it was found that no interest-bearing funds were utilized for investments yielding exempt dividend income. The Tribunal's precedent was considered, but it was noted that the facts differed for the current year. The balance sheet and fund flow statement confirmed no use of interest-bearing funds for investments. Rule 8D, applicable from 2008-2009, could not be invoked for assessment year 2007-2008. The AO was directed to determine disallowance on a reasonable basis as per the High Court's judgment, disregarding rule 8D.

The AO's consideration of total investments, including SEZ, under rule 8D was deemed inappropriate. The income of the assessee as a developer of SEZ was wrongly treated as exempt. The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under section 14A pertains to exempt income, not income eligible for deduction. Sections 10AA and 80IAB provide deductions, not exemptions, hence investments for SEZ income should not factor into disallowance under section 14A. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the AO for disallowance determination on a reasonable basis.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.