2014 (4) TMI 394 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for the previous assessment years, it has been held that the decision in GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed and the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO to determine the reasonable disallowance. Addition made u/s 14A of the Act Computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for the previous assessment years, it has been held that the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable to the present AY thus, disallowance of expenditure by applying Rule 8D is not justified - no actual expenditure was debited in the profit and loss account relating to the earning of exempt income - the provisions of Sec. 14A cannot be imported into while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act inasmuch as clause (f) of Explanation to Sec. 115JB refers to the amount debited to the profit and loss account which can be added back to the book profit while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act - the disallowance of expenses confirmed by the CIT(A) is set aside while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act - no addition to the book profit shall be made for the expenditure of Rs. 113 crores while computing income u/s. 115JB Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act based on average cost of funds method.
2. Applicability of Rule 8D for disallowance calculation.
3. Addition made by the AO u/s. 14A while computing book profits u/s. 115JB.

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A based on average cost of funds method:
The case involved a dispute regarding the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The AO had made a disallowance of Rs. 105.36 Crores invoking section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. The assessee argued that Rule 8D was not applicable retrospectively and submitted a working of Rs. 88.08 Crores based on the average cost of funds method. The FAA directed the AO to apply the average cost of fund method and make disallowance accordingly. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for determining a reasonable proportionate disallowance, following previous decisions. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 8D for disallowance calculation:
The Appellant Company contended that Rule 8D of the Rules was not applicable during the relevant year. The Tribunal noted that in previous assessments, the matter was sent back to the AO for making a reasonable proportionate disallowance. Following this, the Tribunal remitted the issue of determining the reasonable disallowance back to the AO with directions to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order. Ground no. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 3: Addition made by the AO u/s. 14A while computing book profits u/s. 115JB:
The AO had made an addition u/s. 14A while computing book profits u/s. 115JB. The AR submitted that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that Rule 8D was not applicable, and no addition to the book profit should be made for expenditure incurred to earn exempt income while computing income u/s. 115JB. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided the ground in favor of the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed in part.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to disallowance under section 14A, the applicability of Rule 8D for disallowance calculation, and the addition made by the AO while computing book profits. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning and referred to previous decisions to arrive at its conclusions, ultimately partially allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and allowing the appeal of the AO for statistical purposes.