9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 118 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A - Held that - There is no dispute in assessee s appeal that the authorities below have invoked Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Income Tax Rules in computing the impugned section 14A disallowance. The assessment year in question is 2006-07. It does not require much discussion that Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards. The case law of Godrej Boyce and Co. 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT is quoted in support. The Revenue is not able to point out any exception to the same. Therefore, the very basis adopted by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) in computing the impugned disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(ii) and (iii) is held to be not as per the settled law. At the same time, we are of the view that reasonable computation method is arriving at such a disallowance has to be adopted in assessment years prior to 2008-09. It has come on record that the assessee s exempt income in question from dividends reads a sum of ₹ 24.42 lacs. There is no other dispute involved in its appeal on facts and figures narrated in the CIT(A) order comprising of Assessing Officer s findings hereinabove. We observe in these circumstances that larger interest of justice would be met in case a lumpsum adhoc disallowance of ₹ 2.5 lacs is made in these peculiar facts with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly. The assessee gets part relief. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a consequential order. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Applicability of Rule 8D for Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. Disallowance of expenses related to investments in foreign subsidiaries. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in the appeals is the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,55,780 out of the total disallowance of Rs. 1,15,28,410 made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had disallowed these expenses on the grounds that they were related to earning exempt income, specifically dividend income of Rs. 24.42 lacs. The AO applied Rule 8D to compute the disallowance, which included interest and other administrative expenses. The assessee argued that the investments were made using its own funds and that the provisions of Section 14A should not apply as the investments were in foreign subsidiaries or strategic investments in group companies, which do not yield exempt income. 2. Applicability of Rule 8D for Assessment Year 2006-07: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance but reduced it slightly, agreeing that Rule 8D, which was introduced by the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 28-03-2008, was not applicable for the assessment year 2006-07. The CIT(A) noted that the disallowance should still be made using an appropriate method, as the assessee had significant investments and incurred substantial administrative expenses. The Tribunal agreed with this view, stating that Rule 8D is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards, as supported by the case law of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej Boyce and Co., 328 ITR 1. Therefore, the basis adopted by the AO and CIT(A) in computing the disallowance under Rule 8D was not as per settled law. However, a reasonable computation method was necessary for assessment years prior to 2008-09. The Tribunal decided on a lumpsum adhoc disallowance of Rs. 2.5 lacs, considering the peculiar facts of the case, with a rider that it shall not be treated as a precedent. 3. Disallowance of expenses related to investments in foreign subsidiaries: The Revenue's appeal focused on whether the CIT(A) was correct in reducing the disallowance under Section 14A concerning investments in foreign subsidiaries. The CIT(A) held that since the investments in foreign subsidiaries do not result in exempt income and dividends from foreign companies are taxable in India, Section 14A read with Rule 8D would not apply. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the Revenue failed to prove that the investments/dividends related to foreign subsidiaries fell under the exempt income category under Section 10 of the Act. Conclusion: The assessee's appeal (ITA 1816/Ahd/2011) was partly allowed, reducing the disallowance to Rs. 2.5 lacs. The Revenue's appeal (ITA 1904/Ahd/2011) was dismissed, affirming that Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not apply to investments in foreign subsidiaries that do not yield exempt income. The order was pronounced on 25th June 2015 at Ahmedabad.
|
