2016 (3) TMI 211 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A - MAT computation - Held that - In the present case, the finally assessed income of the assessee has been computed in terms of section 115JB of the Act. The disallowance under section 14A of the Act under the normal provisions of the Act was determined at ₹ 65,76,251/-, wherein income by way of long term and short term capital gains and dividend was exempt. On the contrary, in the context of computing income under section 115JB of the Act, the income on account of long term and short term capital gain was includable and only dividend income was excludable or exempt. In such a situation, proportion of the amount disallowable under section 14A of the Act vis- -vis the income treated as exempt under the MAT provisions (i.e. 115JB of the Act) would vary. As per the calculation furnished by the assessee at the time of hearing, such disallowance works out to ₹ 7,58,633/- as against suo-moto disallowance of ₹ 6,07,845/- made by the assessee in the return of income. Therefore, in our view though the action of the CIT(A) is accepted in principle, the entire amount disallowed by the Assessing Officer could not have been deleted. As a consequence, it is directed that the total disallowance be fixed at ₹ 7,58,633/- (inclusive of suomoto disallowance of ₹ 6,07,845/- made by the assessee). - Decided partly in favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act
- Calculation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act
- Discrepancy in the disallowance amount
- Applicability of Rule 8D for determining disallowance

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-17, Mumbai regarding disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee, engaged in various businesses, had made a suo moto disallowance of &8377; 6,07,845/- under section 14A, which was lower than the amount disallowable under section 10 of the Act. The AO added the higher amount to the income, resulting in a total income of &8377; 10,13,46,870. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, citing the appellant's clear facts regarding the disallowance calculation and the application of Rule 8D to the entire income, which was deemed incorrect.

The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the disallowance should not have been deleted, and the entire amount calculated by the AO should have been upheld. The Ld. DR contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant explained the computation of income under section 115JB, which resulted in a higher tax liability, leading to the filing of the return based on the book profit.

During the hearing, it was highlighted that the major component of investment income was Long Term Capital Gain, which was included in the book profit. The AO added the entire disallowance amount, while the assessee calculated a proportionate amount based on the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D, emphasizing that only actual expenditure for earning exempt income should be disallowed.

The Tribunal concluded that while the CIT(A)'s decision was accepted, the entire disallowance made by the AO should not have been deleted. The correct disallowance amount was determined at &8377; 7,58,633, inclusive of the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed, and the total disallowance was fixed at &8377; 7,58,633.