2013 (1) TMI 41 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A Rule 8D - Expenditure incurred in relation of exempt income - Whether any income has been earned or not, expenses incurred in relation to the said investment which is not going to result into any taxable income has to be disallowed u/s 14A - Assessee had made investment in the units of mutual fund Held that - Following the decision in case of GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that Rule 8D which is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and in respect of prior years, disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income both direct and indirect expenses has to be made on a reasonable basis after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Issue restore back to decide in light of said judgement AO. Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) Nexus between borrowing with the business activity - Assessee engaged in the business of syndication activities and insurance business - AO argued that syndication activities were of the nature of liaison activity resulting into commission income - Nexus between huge borrowings made by the assessee to the tune of Rs.4.59 crores with the business Given interest free advances of Rs.1.13 crores Held that - In the immediate preceding year i.e. 2006-07, assessee had the same activities and interest on borrowings of Rs.3.70 crores had been allowed by the AO which means that AO accepted the nexus of borrowings with the business activities. Therefore, in the current year, no disallowance of expenses can be made in relation to opening balance of Rs.3.70 crores. The disallowance can only be made in relation to interest free advances given by the assessee. Therefore, disallowance has to be made only in relation to such interest free advances @ 14.5% as done in earlier year. Partly allowed in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:

The first dispute concerns the disallowance of expenses under section 14A related to an investment of Rs.1,19,000/- in mutual fund units, from which the income was exempt. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses amounting to Rs.17,032/- under Rule 8D. The assessee argued that no income was earned from the investment, and hence, no expenses should be disallowed. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on the Mumbai Special Bench's decision in Daga Capital Management Ltd.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee reiterated that no dividend income was received, citing the Tribunal's decision in Ascent Tradecom Private Limited vs. DCIT, supported by the Bombay High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Delite Enterprises. The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court had not explicitly decided on the disallowance under section 14A when no income was earned, thus the judgment could not be considered a binding precedent.

The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajendra Prasad Moody, which held that expenses related to exempt income must be disallowed even if no income is received. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that expenses must be disallowed under section 14A, but noted that Rule 8D applies only from the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, the disallowance for prior years should be made on a reasonable basis. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for re-examination, considering the Bombay High Court's judgment in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT.

2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:

The second dispute pertains to the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.59,51,911/-. The AO questioned the nexus between the interest expenditure and the income earned, noting that the assessee had unsecured loans of Rs.4.59 crores but had not shown any interest income in the Profit & Loss account. The AO found that Rs.1,13,13,641/- was given as advances with no interest income earned, and thus concluded that the borrowings were not used for business purposes, disallowing the entire interest claim.

The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the loans were used for business purposes, with a significant portion carried forward from the previous year where interest was allowed. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting the lack of evidence proving the business purpose of the loans.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that only Rs.42 lakhs was the new loan, with Rs.3.70 crores carried forward from the previous year where interest was allowed, and disallowance should be limited to interest-free advances. The Tribunal found the assessee's argument convincing, noting that the AO had accepted the nexus of borrowings with business activities in the previous year. Therefore, no disallowance should be made for the opening balance of Rs.3.70 crores. The disallowance should only pertain to interest-free advances, calculated at 14.5% as in the previous year. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the disallowance accordingly, partially allowing the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing a re-examination of the disallowance under section 14A and a recalculation of the disallowed interest expenditure based on interest-free advances.

← Previous Next →