2014 (4) TMI 777 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act Nexus between expenditure incurred and the income not forming part of the total income - Held that - Before the CIT(A), assessee contended that sufficient interest free funds were available with the assessee company and the disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted - the major income consisted of only commission, rent and there is no other business activity - The incurring of interest is in no way connected with earning of this income - out of total funds of Rs.12.75 crores, funds amounting to Rs.2.37 crores were invested in current assets and Rs.27.17 lacks were in the form of fixed assets and accumulated losses leaving behind net funds available to the assessee at Rs.10.11 crores only which were entirely invested in the said investments - the funds invested in the current assets are in the form of loans and advances which also are interest free advances the contention of the assessee that interest free funds were used in the partnership business cannot be accepted thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of section 14/rule 8D (2)(iii) when no income is received during the year and the nexus between expenditure and exempt income.
2. Disallowance of interest expenses incurred for investments in partnership firms under section 14A.
3. Justification of invoking Rule 8D for computing disallowance under section 14A.

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the order of the ld CIT(A) regarding the applicability of section 14/rule 8D (2)(iii) despite no income being received during the year and the claimed absence of a nexus between expenditure and exempt income. The assessee argued that no expenditure was incurred for earning the exempt income and that the investments were made from interest-free funds. However, the Assessing Officer disagreed, stating that the borrowed funds were used for investments, which would generate exempt income in the future. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenses, emphasizing the disallowance of expenditure not related to total income. The ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance strictly in terms of Rule 8D, considering the mixed funds used for investments.

Issue 2:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenses incurred for investments in partnership firms under section 14A, as the investments were made using borrowed funds, leading to exempt income. The ld CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, considering the mixed funds used for investments and the lack of separate accounts to prove the source of funds. The ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to apply Rule 8D for computing the disallowance under section 14A, recognizing the use of borrowed funds for investments.

Issue 3:
The Assessing Officer's computation of disallowance under section 14A was challenged by the appellant, arguing that the disallowance should have been restricted under Rule 8D. The ld CIT(A) agreed with the appellant, stating that Rule 8D should be strictly applied when the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of expenses related to tax-exempt income. The appellant's plea was accepted, and the Assessing Officer was directed to compute the disallowance under Rule 8D after verifying the appellant's computation.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no infirmity in the ld CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of interest expenses incurred for investments in partnership firms under section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the application of Rule 8D for computing the disallowance, considering the use of mixed funds for investments and the lack of connection between the interest expenses and the income earned.