2016 (4) TMI 1084 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal admitted on the substantial question of law at question no.(ii) hereinabove. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders of the CIT(A) in regard to the liability on account of warranties?

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Rule 8D for interest disallowance
2. Liability on account of warranties
3. Provisions of warranty as an ascertained liability within Section 115JB
4. Treatment of advances received during the year on the basis of works contract

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application of Rule 8D for interest disallowance
The respondent-assessee received dividend income and claimed it to be exempted under the Act. However, the respondent-assessee disallowed an amount on its own related to earning exempt income under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D and made a disallowance on account of interest. The CIT (A) upheld this disallowance due to the failure of the respondent to explain the investment source. The Tribunal found that the respondent had sufficient own funds to cover the investments, relying on a court decision. The Tribunal's factual finding was deemed reasonable, and no substantial question of law was found.

Issue 2: Liability on account of warranties
The Revenue's proposed question regarding the liability on warranties did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The Assessing Officer taxed income under normal provisions as it exceeded the tax under Section 115JB. The Tribunal did not address the applicability of Section 115JB as it was not raised by either party. Therefore, the question on the liability of warranties was not entertained.

Issue 3: Provisions of warranty as an ascertained liability within Section 115JB
As the applicability of Section 115JB was not discussed during the assessment, the question related to provisions of warranty within Section 115JB did not arise from the Tribunal's order and was not entertained.

Issue 4: Treatment of advances received during the year
The Tribunal did not entertain the proposed question regarding the treatment of advances received during the year, as it was a common order for multiple assessment years. The court had dismissed a similar question for a previous assessment year, leading to the decision not to entertain this question as well.

The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law related to the liability on account of warranties. The court directed the registry to provide a copy of the order to the Tribunal for further proceedings. The case was scheduled to be heard along with other income tax appeals.