2016 (4) TMI 944 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s. 14A r/w Rule 8D - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case Rule BD has to be applied in the case of the appellant and the proportionate expenditure in relation to exempt income determined. The AO has followed a method which is not fully consonant with the method provided in rule 8D. The AO is directed to determine amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income by applying the method prescribed in Rule BD. The disallowance of proportionate expenditure determined in each year according to the above rule would be the amount of disallowance that is confirmed. Any amount of disallowance which is higher than the amount computed as per rule 8D should be treated as deleted - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance under section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Act based on diversion of funds to subsidiary company.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2005-06, challenging the disallowance under section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Act, alleging diversion of funds to a subsidiary company.

2. The assessee, a real estate and infrastructure development company, declared a loss in its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed a sum under section 14A during assessment, which the CIT(A) later deleted, directing the A.O. to determine the expenditure in relation to exempt income based on previous directions for A.Ys. 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.

3. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties. The AR for the assessee contended that the appeal was similar to a previous case decided by the ITAT Mumbai for A.Y. 1994-95 and 1996-97, while the DR relied on the A.O.'s order.

4. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 1994-95 & 1996-97, emphasizing the nature of the investment in a subsidiary company and the purpose of earning dividends, following principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court regarding expenditure incurred for earning dividend income.

5. The CIT(A) relied on previous orders in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07 while deleting the disallowance under section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the application of Rule 8D for determining expenditure related to exempt income and directing the A.O. to follow the prescribed method for calculation.

6. The CIT(A) maintained consistency in directing the A.O. to determine the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal based on the principle of consistency.

7. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance under section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, previous decisions, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the disallowance under section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Act based on the alleged diversion of funds to a subsidiary company.