2015 (9) TMI 1664 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - mandation of satisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee about the claim of the assessee - HELD THAT - For making disallowance u/s 14A, the condition precedent is that the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 14A has to be mandatorily fulfilled. If such conditions are not satisfied, then no disallowance u/s 14A can be triggered. Here in this case, not only from the accounts of the assessee but also looking to the nature of expenditure incurred and nature of investments standing in the Balance sheet, it cannot be held that any disallowance u/s 14A is called for. Nowhere the AO has given his satisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee about the claim of the assessee, that no expenditure has been incurred, which can be said to be attributable for making investment capable of earring exempt income or has yielded the exempt income is false or incorrect. Accordingly, on these facts we hold that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for

Summary

Issues Involved:
Disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D for quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Initial Disallowance: The appellant, engaged in trading and export of diamonds, contested the disallowance of Rs. 12,27,788 under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The AO invoked this provision due to the substantial investments shown by the appellant. The appellant argued that the investments were from interest-free funds and accumulated profits, thus not subject to section 14A.

2. AO and CIT(A) Decision: The AO and CIT(A) rejected the appellant's contentions, citing precedents where even investments in partnership firms were deemed separate entities, triggering section 14A. The disallowance was calculated at 0.5% of the average value of investments, totaling Rs. 12,27,788.

3. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant highlighted strategic investments in a subsidiary and a partnership firm, emphasizing that these were not for earning exempt income. They referenced precedents supporting their stance and argued that administrative expenses were solely for business purposes, not for earning exempt income.

4. Judicial Review: The Tribunal analyzed the investments made by the appellant, noting that the partnership firm investment was mainly from accretion of profits, not fresh investments. They scrutinized administrative expenses, concluding that none were attributable to earning exempt income. The Tribunal emphasized that for a section 14A disallowance, specific conditions must be met, which were absent in this case.

5. Final Verdict: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that no disallowance under section 14A was warranted. They emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the AO's satisfaction regarding expenses related to earning exempt income. The appellant's appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.