2018 (7) TMI 2059 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A under clause (iii) of rule 8D of the IT Rules - assessee's argument is that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income and secondly, for the purpose of working out disallowance under clause (iii) of rule 8D, the only investments which yielded dividend income or exempt income alone should be considered - HELD THAT - The proposition that the amount of disallowance cannot exceed exempt income is settled. Accordingly, we hold that the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. On the second limb of argument that only investments which yielded exempt income should alone be considered, in the light of the decision of ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI the contention of the assessee is accepted. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the AO for disallowance u/s 14A by restricting the amount of disallowance to the lower of exempt income or amount arrived at by prescribed formula under rule 8D clause (iii) by taking into only those investments which yielded exempt income. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether disallowance can exceed exempt income.
3. Consideration of only investments yielding exempt income for disallowance calculation.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of &8377; 24,87,246 under rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act, claiming the company had incurred administrative expenditure related to investments earning dividend income. The Commissioner confirmed this action, leading to the appeal. The assessee argued that disallowance should not exceed the exempt income of &8377; 96,116 and only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance calculation. The Special Bench of the Tribunal had a similar ruling in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., supporting the assessee's contentions.

The main issue was whether the AO was justified in making a disallowance of &8377; 24,87,246 under clause (iii) of rule 8D. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income and that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the disallowance calculation. Citing the decision in Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that the disallowance should be restricted to the lower of the exempt income or the amount calculated by the prescribed formula under rule 8D clause (iii), considering only investments yielding exempt income. As a result, the appeal by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the limitations on disallowance under rule 8D r.w.s. 14A, emphasizing that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income and only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculation purposes. The case was remanded back to the AO for appropriate disallowance calculation in line with the Tribunal's ruling.