2018 (4) TMI 1952 - AT - Income Tax

GP addition on AUDA and electric connection charges expenses - Alternative plea of re-quantification of the impugned addition in order to avoid double addition - HELD THAT - As come on record that learned lower appellate authority has taken into account the relevant figures which already stood added as income in preceding assessment year. It is thus a case of consistency in the impugned assessment year vis -vis earlier assessment year qua the very issue. There is no material on record which could rebut this factual position. We therefore find CIT(A) s approach to be consistent in re-computation of the impugned addition as per the relevant facts in preceding assessment year. The assessee therefore fails in his former substantive ground. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the fact that both the lower authorities have applied rule 8D whilst computing the impugned disallowance as applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards. The hon ble apex court recent decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT settles the law that relevant expenditure in case of exempt income has to be apportioned between taxable and non-taxable income. The assessee s arguments therefore challenging application of rule 8D in principle in light of section 14A are rejected. As alternative plea in view in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd 2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT that such disallowance cannot exceed the actual exempt income figure. Revenue fails to rebut this legal position. We therefore restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of exempt income and delete the remaining disallowance component out - Assessee s latter instant substantive ground is therefore partly accepted. This assessee s appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. GP addition on AUDA and electric connection charges expenses
2. Correctness of section 14A read with rule 8D disallowance

Issue 1: GP addition on AUDA and electric connection charges expenses:

The appeal for assessment year 2011-12 contested the CIT(A)'s order confirming a GP addition on construction activity expenses. The AO observed that the assessee did not consider all direct expenses for working out the value of work in progress (WIP). The AO recalculated the GP and made an addition. The appellant argued that AUDA and electric connection charges were not part of the closing balance of WIP but expenses accrued during the year on completed projects. The AO's action was upheld as these charges had a direct bearing on WIP. The appellant contended a mistake in quantifying the addition amount, which was partially allowed, restricting the addition to Rs.1,74,945. The CIT(A) accepted the re-quantification to avoid double addition, maintaining consistency with the earlier assessment year. The assessee's challenge failed on this ground.

Issue 2: Correctness of section 14A read with rule 8D disallowance:

The dispute centered on the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D concerning exempt income. Both lower authorities applied rule 8D for computation. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, it was established that relevant expenditure for exempt income must be apportioned between taxable and non-taxable income. The assessee's objection to the application of rule 8D was rejected. An alternative plea based on a Delhi High Court case was raised, limiting the disallowance to not exceed the actual exempt income figure. The impugned disallowance was restricted to the exempt income amount, partially accepting the assessee's ground. The appeal was partly allowed.

This judgment addressed two main issues: the GP addition on specific expenses and the correctness of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. The analysis detailed the arguments presented by the parties, the authorities' findings, and the legal principles applied in reaching the decisions. The judgment provided a comprehensive review of the facts, submissions, and reasoning behind the conclusions reached by the tribunal.