9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1613 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - whether assessee had not directly or indirectly incurred any expenditure to earn exempt income? - HELD THAT - In support of its claim, the assessee submitted a cash flow statement for FY 2006-07 which was not filed before the CIT(A). Further, some of the plea taken by the assessee before us, like the investment made was for controlling interest etc., was not taken before the lower authorities. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit this issues back to the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee shall place all the materials in its support before the AO and comply to the AO s requirements as per law. The A O is free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit, but he shall furnish adequate opportunity to the assesssee on the material etc to be used against it and decide the matter in accordance with law. In the result, the corresponding grounds of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure. 2. Addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure: The assessee, involved in land development for industrial, commercial, and residential use, capitalized interest expenditure incurred on loans for the purchase of land in NH5 & Phase-V projects in its books of account. However, it claimed the same interest as an expenditure in the computation memo. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, stating that the method followed by the assessee in its books was correct and needed no adjustment, as it adhered to accounting principles. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this decision, noting that the assessee cannot capitalize interest expenditure on one hand and claim it as revenue expenditure for tax purposes on the other. The assessee argued that the interest cost, included in work-in-progress, is offered as income in the year of land sale, ensuring no revenue loss to the department. The assessee claimed that interest, being a period cost, should be deductible under Section 37(1) in the year incurred. The AO and CIT(A) rejected this, noting that the assessee’s accounting practices, certified by auditors, conformed to applicable accounting principles and standards, and the book results were not to be disturbed for tax computation purposes. The Tribunal, referencing the Delhi High Court decision in Commissioner Of Income-tax - IV, New Delhi vs Insilco Limited, emphasized that accounting standards are mandatory and the assessee’s practices were in line with these standards. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim through the computation memo was neither in accordance with accounting standards nor statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld. 2. Addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: For the assessment year 2011-12, the AO found that the assessee invested ?13 crores in its subsidiary, Mahindra Integrated Township Ltd., and calculated expenses related to these investments under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(iii) at ?6,56,750/-, adding this amount to the returned income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, following precedents set by the Bombay High Court and the jurisdictional ITAT. The assessee contended that no fresh investments were made during the assessment year 2011-12, and the investments were carried forward from previous years, made through own funds, primarily for holding a controlling stake rather than earning income. The assessee argued that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income, making the application of Section 14A and Rule 8D unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee presented a cash flow statement for FY 2006-07 and other arguments not previously submitted to the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to present all supporting materials and comply with legal requirements. The AO was directed to conduct appropriate inquiries, provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to respond to any material used against it, and decide the matter in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The assessee's appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13 were dismissed, while the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's decision emphasized adherence to mandatory accounting standards and statutory provisions, rejecting the assessee's claims where they deviated from these principles.
|
