2017 (8) TMI 1415 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Hed that - Issue is directly covered by the judgment of this Court in a case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing CO. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reported in (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - amount of variable cost portion of the lease of the aircraft payable by the assessee and tax at source has to be deducted on the same - Tribunal set aside disallowance - Held that - Tribunal has considered that the assessee had entered into an agreement to avail flying hours with Taj Air. The assessee has assigned these rights of flying hours to Tata Motors Ltd. The credit note was issued to the assessee for sum of ₹ 14.95 lakhs towards variable costs. This credit note was issued by the Tata Motrs Ltd. towards variable costs and not in the nature of any expenses made to Taj Air. The credit note was not in the nature of expenses on which provision of TDS is applicable. The Tribunal has rightly considered the said aspect.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of legal precedent without Supreme Court adjudication
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961
3. Prospective application of Rule 8D for disallowance u/s 14A
4. Deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised in the appeal questions the High Court's application of the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT without a specific adjudication by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The appellant challenges the correctness of this application by the High Court.

2. The second and third issues concern the disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The High Court relied on the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, where the operation of Rule 8D was made prospective. The appellant contests the setting aside of the disallowance under section 14A based on this ruling, arguing that the method provided in Rule 8D has been accepted as reasonable in the same judgment.

3. Regarding the fourth issue, the Tribunal's deletion of the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is challenged. The appellant asserts that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the disallowance, as the amount in question represents the variable cost portion of the lease of the aircraft, on which tax at source should have been deducted.

4. The High Court, in its judgment, addressed all the grounds raised in the appeal. Grounds 1, 2, and 3 were found to be directly covered by the judgment in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT. The Court upheld the decision based on this precedent.

5. In response to ground no. 4, the Court considered the argument regarding the non-deduction of TDS on the amount in question. The Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance was supported by the fact that the credit note issued was towards variable costs and not considered as expenses subject to TDS provisions, as it was related to the lease agreement with Tata Motors Ltd.

6. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court, with no costs awarded. The Court found no merit in the appellant's challenges to the application of legal precedents and the decisions made regarding the disallowances under the relevant sections of the I.T. Act.