9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1847 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D while computing the book profits u/s.115JB - Suo-moto disallowance by assessee - HELD THAT - We find that the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI had held that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot be made by applying the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D of the rules while computing the book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. Hence, we reject the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. Assessee had already made suo moto disallowance of expenses while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act, which admittedly represent amounts debited to profit and loss account by the assessee and the disallowance u/s.14A for the purpose of 115JB should be made based on actual amounts debited to the profit and loss account. In this scenario, assessee s disallowance should be accepted. Since the assessee has voluntarily disallowed this sum u/s.14A while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act, no further disallowance need to be made thereafter. Accordingly, the ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed. Disallowance of interest on proportionate basis u/s.36(1)(iii) - interest free advances given to the subsidiary and sister concerns of the assessee - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that assessee has got sufficient own funds, we direct the ld. AO not to make any disallowance of interest and accordingly, the disallowance made by the ld. AO is deleted. Accordingly, ground No.6 raised by the assessee is allowed. Disallowance of employee s contribution of provident fund - paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the PF Act but were paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) - distinction between the employees contribution and employer's contribution - HELD THAT - The amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on par the benefit of deductions of tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand with contributions to various Employees' Welfare Funds on the other. All this came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT . The Tribunal in the case at hand relied upon the said judgment. There is no reason to fault the order passed by the Tribunal. We are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd. applies to employees' contribution as well as employers' contribution. Question accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Disallowance of prior period expenses - HELD THAT;- revenue had not disputed the genuineness of this expenditure and incurrence of the same for the purpose of assessee s business. We find that the revenue had not disputed the fact that these expenses were not debited in the profit and loss account of the assessee and claimed as deduction by the assessee in the earlier year. Hence, the genuine business expenditure though accounted as prior period expenses, which has been duly explained by the assessee with proper reasoning by proving that the expenses had indeed crystallized during the year need to be allowed as deduction - we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made towards prior period expenses - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing book profits under Section 115JB. 2. Disallowance of interest on proportionate basis under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free advances to subsidiaries and sister concerns. 3. Disallowance of employee’s contribution to provident fund paid beyond the due dates under the PF Act but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). 4. Disallowance of prior period expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing book profits under Section 115JB: The assessee derived dividend income and claimed it as exempt under Section 10(34). The assessee made a suo moto disallowance under Section 14A in its return of income. However, the AO invoked Rule 8D and made a disallowance of ?10,88,24,112 while computing book profits under Section 115JB, which was upheld by the DRP. The Tribunal, referencing the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in Vireet Investments, held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made by applying Rule 8D while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s suo moto disallowance of ?24,42,759 and allowed ground No. 5. 2. Disallowance of interest on proportionate basis under Section 36(1)(iii): The AO observed that the assessee had given interest-free advances to subsidiaries and sister concerns while having taken substantial loans and incurred interest expenses. The AO disallowed proportionate interest of ?8,37,01,584, which was upheld by the DRP. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the interest-free advances. Citing the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance, thus allowing ground No. 6. 3. Disallowance of employee’s contribution to provident fund: The AO disallowed ?74,37,578, which were paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the PF Act but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). The Tribunal, referencing the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., held that such payments are allowable if made before the due date of filing the return. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance, allowing ground No. 7. 4. Disallowance of prior period expenses: The AO disallowed ?31,44,360 as prior period expenses, citing that they pertained to the previous financial year. The assessee argued that these expenses crystallized in the current year due to late receipt of bills and were thus accounted for in the current year. The Tribunal found the expenses to be genuine and necessary for the business, and noted that they were not claimed in the previous year. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance, allowing ground No. 8. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on the limited aspects of ground Nos. 5 to 8 as recalled in the miscellaneous application. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10/04/2019.
|
