2017 (10) TMI 1594 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee was unable to differentiate that investment so made was not from the common pool funds - CIT-A restricted the addition - HELD THAT - The assessee produced balance sheet showing the dividend earned and interest paid and also the computation income of the assessee which clearly establishes that the assessee earned a dividend income of ₹ 4,83,547/- and paid a total interest of ₹ 17,48,43,433/- for term loan whereas in the computation of income the assessee themselves disallowed a sum of ₹ 56,55,890/- towards expenses relating to the exempt income - the assessee themselves allowed ₹ 56,55,890/- whereas Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition of ₹ 3,89,51,174/- to ₹ 23,79,288/-. It is pertinent to note that the assessee did not express any grievance by challenging the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) in continuing the addition but to a limited extent. In our considered opinion, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be challenged by the Revenue keeping in view the settled position of law on this aspect and also in view of the fact that the assessee accepted the same without challenging it by way of appeal or cross-objection. We, therefore, upheld the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal. Addition in respect of ESOP alleging the outgoing expenses are only notional and the expenditure is allowable only when the shares are purchased by the employer - HELD THAT - Issue decided in favour of assessee as relying on Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd 2016 (2) TMI 788 - ITAT DELHI . Capital gain - assessee relinquishes his rights in respect of a commercial space - difference of fair market value and the value adopted by the assessee for relinquishment of right in commercial property - AO referred the matter to the Department Valuation Officer and accepted the valuation of DVO and added the difference to the income of the assessee - CIT-A deleted the addition an found the value at which the rights were relinquished is more than the valuation as per the circle rates prescribed by the Stamp Valuation Authority inasmuch as value as per the relinquish mandate deed - HELD THAT - On a careful consideration of this matter and in the light of the provisions of section 50C(1) to (3) of the Act and the decisions relied upon by the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the findings reached by the Ld.CIT(A) do not suffer any irregularity and the reasons given by the Ld.CIT(A) to reach such findings are impeccable. With this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and consequently dismiss this ground of the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act
2. Disallowance of expenses related to Employee Stock Option Cost (ESOP)
3. Addition made in respect of relinquishment of rights in commercial property
4. General grounds of appeal

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act
The Revenue challenged the order restricting the addition under section 14A. The Revenue contended that the entire tax-exempt income should be disallowed. However, the assessee argued that only expenses related to the tax-exempt income should be disallowed. The Tribunal referred to a High Court decision and noted that the disallowance should not exceed the expenses incurred in relation to the tax-exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a lower amount, considering the assessee's acceptance of the same without challenge. The appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Issue 2: Disallowance of expenses related to Employee Stock Option Cost (ESOP)
The AO made an addition in respect of ESOP expenses, claiming they were notional and allowable only upon share purchase. However, the CIT(A) referred to previous Tribunal decisions in the assessee's favor for other assessment years. These decisions were upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal, bound by the High Court's decisions, dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

Issue 3: Addition made in respect of relinquishment of rights in commercial property
The AO added the difference between the value adopted by the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) and the value as per Stamp Valuation Authority regarding the relinquishment of rights in a commercial property. The CIT(A) found the value as per the relinquishment deed higher than the Stamp Valuation Authority's value. The Tribunal considered the provisions of section 50C(1) and relevant case laws. It upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the reasons given were sound. Consequently, the appeal on this ground was dismissed.

General Grounds of Appeal
The Tribunal noted that the general grounds of appeal did not require specific adjudication and dismissed them. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on all the issues discussed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and decisions made by the Tribunal regarding each issue raised in the appeal.