2015 (6) TMI 140 - HC - Income Tax

Applicability of Rule 8D(ii) - Held that - The figures under the head Investment could be taken and some charges apportioned for the purpose of computing the expenses. The Commissioner found from such figures, that only 10% of the income earned could be apportioned towards expenses for earning the dividend income. CIT(A) therefore, made a revised disallowance been accepted by Tribunal. No substantial question of law - See Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Rule 8D(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2. Whether the questions raised constitute substantial questions of law.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the application of Rule 8D(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Court initially granted time for the Appellant's counsel to seek instructions from the Assessing Officer regarding the correct application of the rule. Despite an adjournment, the counsel failed to obtain instructions due to departmental restructuring. The Court decided not to grant further time for verification of the factual issue. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's order, which disallowed expenses incurred for earning dividend income. The Commissioner revised the disallowance based on investment figures, apportioning charges for computing expenses, ultimately allowing only 10% of the income earned to be apportioned towards expenses for earning dividend income.

2. The judgment delves into whether the questions raised constitute substantial questions of law. The Court found the first question, regarding the application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, not substantial as it was previously decided against the Revenue in a specific case. Both authorities in the present case correctly applied the relevant provisions based on a prior judgment. The second question, concerning the application of the Rule and raising a factual issue, was deemed not substantial. The Court concluded that the Commissioner and Tribunal's orders were not flawed by any error of law, rendering the appeal devoid of merit and dismissing it without costs.