2022 (1) TMI 1270 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A(2) - Mandation of recording satisfaction - dividend income from investments made by it in the equity shares, which was claimed as exempt income - HELD THAT - Since the AO in the instant case has not recorded his satisfaction before making the disallowance, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2010-11 where it is held that in absence of any satisfaction recorded by the AO, the disallowance made by him and sustained by the CIT(A) is not correct, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Addition of foreign travel and business promotion expenses - Allowable business expenses or not? - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the assessee is an NBFC company engaged in trading of units of various mutual funds and conducting investment activities in shares and fixed maturity plans. However, there is no evidence on record as to whom the directors who visited the foreign country met and as to what is the outcome of the said meeting and whether any of the statements made by the assessee has materialized or not. Since the assessee could not furnish any evidence or substantiate its claim other than mere statement either before the AO or before CIT(A) or before us that these expenses were in fact incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of foreign travel and business promotion expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:

The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs.1,08,69,547/- made under Section 14A by the Assessing Officer (AO) and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee argued that the disallowance was made mechanically without appreciating the facts, and the strategic investments in Dabur India Limited should not form part of the disallowance under Section 14A.

The AO observed that the assessee had substantial investments in shares and securities, some of which generated exempt income. The assessee had suo motu disallowed Rs.2,41,164/- under Section 14A, but the AO computed a higher disallowance of Rs.1,11,10,711/- as per Rule 8D, leading to an additional disallowance of Rs.1,08,69,547/-.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance, referencing a similar decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11, where the disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed.

The assessee's counsel argued that only actual expenditure incurred to earn exempt income should be disallowed, and no notional disallowance should be made. The counsel cited decisions from higher courts, emphasizing that the AO must record satisfaction about the nature of expenses incurred to earn exempt income before making any disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record any satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's computation. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11, where it was held that in the absence of recorded satisfaction by the AO, the disallowance made was not correct. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.1,08,69,547/-.

2. Disallowance of Foreign Travel and Business Promotion Expenses:

The assessee also challenged the disallowance of Rs.18,37,557/- on account of foreign travel (Rs.12,88,954/-) and business promotion expenses (Rs.5,48,603/-). The AO disallowed these expenses, noting that the assessee's business of investment in shares and securities in India had no foreign connection. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee did not furnish any cogent explanation or evidence to justify the expenses as business-related.

The assessee's counsel argued that the expenses were incurred for expanding the financial business by meeting foreign fund managers and exploring investment opportunities outside India. The counsel cited provisions of Section 37 of the IT Act and decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which allow expenses incurred voluntarily and for business purposes.

The Tribunal, however, found no evidence on record to substantiate the assessee's claim that the expenses were incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details of meetings or outcomes of the foreign visits. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the disallowance of Rs.18,37,557/-.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by directing the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A but upheld the disallowance of foreign travel and business promotion expenses. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28.01.2022.