9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 446 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB(10) - Project wise deduction - Whether the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IB - Held that - that for determining the amount which qualifies for deduction u/s 80IB(1), one has to compute the income from eligible business as if the eligible business was the only source of income of the assessee. In other words, the income or loss from other business or other activities are to be ignored for the purpose of determining the amount which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(1) of the Act - gross total income of the assessee is ₹ 2,56,37,975/- after adjusting losses suffered by the assessee in the other two projects viz. Shreyas and Coimbatore . There are no brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. Spandhana and Samruddhi of ₹ 2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) erred in interpreting the relevant provisions when they held that the losses suffered by the assessee from two projects, viz. Shreyas and Coimbatore be reduced from the profits of the other two units viz. Spandhana and Samruddhi for granting deduction u/s 80IB. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the lower authorities are set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IB on the profits derived by the assessee from two projects viz. Spandhana and Samruddhi of ₹ 2,23,22,237 - Following decision of CIT v. Canara Workshop (P.) Ltd. 1986 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - unless the Assessing Officer reaches a satisfaction after examination of accounts on the basis of reasons recorded in the assessment order that the claim of quantum expenditure of the assessee as incurred in relation to the exempt income is not acceptable then, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules. In the instant case, in the absence of any reason for considering the claim of the assessee as unsatisfactory, in our considered view, the invocation of Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction and consequently unsustainable. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of ₹ 9,12,875/- and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to ₹ 15,000/- only - Following decision of MAXOPP Investment Ltd. vs. CIT & Others 2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) of Rs. 2,23,22,237. 2. Assessment of interest income under the head "Other Sources." 3. Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act r.w. Rule 8D of IT Rules of Rs. 9,27,875. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB(10): The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 2,23,22,237 under section 80IB(10) despite showing a business loss. - Facts: The assessee, engaged in real estate development, completed two projects ('Samruddhi' and 'Shreyas') and continued two others ('Spandhana' and 'Coimbatore'). The assessee claimed a deduction under section 80IB for Rs. 2,23,22,237. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction due to a reported business loss. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that if the interest income was assessed under the head 'business,' there would be a positive business income, making them eligible for the deduction. They also contended that even if the interest income was not considered business income, the gross total income was positive and included income eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10). - CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, referencing the ITAT Lucknow Bench's decision in Propene Products Ltd. v. JCIT, which stated that deductions under Chapter VI-A are allowable only if there is a gross total income from eligible business. - ITAT's Analysis: The ITAT noted that the gross total income included profits from eligible projects and losses from others. They emphasized that for section 80IB(10), the profits of each eligible unit must be determined separately, without adjusting losses from other units. The ITAT referenced the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Canara Workshop (P.) Ltd. and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CIT v. Visakha Industries Ltd., which supported the view that losses from other units should not be set off against profits of eligible units. - Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 2,23,22,237 under section 80IB(10) for the profits from the 'Samruddhi' and 'Spandhana' projects, without adjusting the losses from 'Shreyas' and 'Coimbatore' projects. 2. Assessment of Interest Income: The assessee did not press grounds related to the assessment of interest income under the head "Other Sources." - Conclusion: These grounds were dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. Disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D: The issue was the disallowance of Rs. 9,27,875 under section 14A towards expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. - Facts: The assessee received dividend income of Rs. 1,58,45,280 and claimed it as exempt. They initially disallowed Rs. 15,000 as expenses related to earning this income. However, the Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and disallowed Rs. 9,27,875. - CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the amount offered by the assessee was substantially low and had no basis, whereas the Assessing Officer's calculation was in accordance with the law. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee relied on the Tribunal's decisions in the cases of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., where it was held that the Assessing Officer must record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. - ITAT's Analysis: The ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim. They referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized that the Assessing Officer must record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D. - Conclusion: The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer's invocation of Rule 8D was without jurisdiction due to the lack of recorded dissatisfaction. They deleted the disallowance of Rs. 9,12,875 and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 15,000. Final Decision: - The appeal regarding the deduction under section 80IB(10) was allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 2,23,22,237. - Grounds related to the assessment of interest income were dismissed. - The disallowance under section 14A was reduced to Rs. 15,000. Order pronounced on July 8, 2013, at Chennai.
|
