2014 (8) TMI 107 - AT - Income Tax

Interest expenses u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D Held that - Assessee had earned tax free income in the form of dividend which is exempt from tax - the interest free funds available with the Assessee are in excess of investments Relying upon CIT vs. Amod Stamping P. Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 753 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - when Assessee was having interest free funds far in excess of investment it can be said that the investments are made out of interest free funds - when interest income was more than the interest expenditure than the AO was not justified to invoke the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act - disallowance of Rs. one lac on account of administrative expenses which has been upheld by CIT(A) and against which Assessee is not an appeal, no disallowance on account of interest u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is called for Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order challenged.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
3. Levy of interest under section 234B.

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order challenged:
The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2006-07, challenging the validity of the assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to the Assessee appealing before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of the assessment order was not pressed and thus required no adjudication, leading to its dismissal.

Issue 2: Disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The Assessing Officer (A.O) disallowed interest expenditure of &8377; 12,75,917 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, as the Assessee had earned tax-free dividend income and taken a loan on which interest was paid. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure, citing the intermingling of own and borrowed funds for investments. The Tribunal, however, noted that the Assessee had sufficient interest-free funds exceeding investments, following precedents that investments were made from interest-free funds when available in excess. It was also highlighted that Rule 8D was not applicable for the relevant assessment year, as per the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Ltd. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, directing no disallowance of interest under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Issue 3: Levy of interest under section 234B:
The Assessee challenged the levy of interest amounting to &8377; 1,53,495 under section 234B. However, the judgment did not provide detailed analysis or resolution specifically related to this issue, as the focus was primarily on the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, primarily on the grounds related to the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, emphasizing the availability of interest-free funds exceeding investments and the inapplicability of Rule 8D for the relevant assessment year. The judgment did not delve deeply into the challenge against the levy of interest under section 234B.