2016 (5) TMI 108 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The investment as on 31stMarch 2008 was 3, 65, 32, 450/- whereas the reserve and surplus of the company as on 31st March 2008 was of 18, 60, 41, 748/-which is much higher than the investment in exempt income earning assets. The assessee demonstrated the similar situation in the earlier years when the investment was made. Thus the facts of the case of the assessee are identical to the facts of the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) to hold that no addition can be made for interest of 12, 27, 050/- apportioned towards exempt income out of the interest paid under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. However so far as the AO s computation of expenditure to be disallowed under rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned the same in our view is in conformity with the rules hence the same do not call for any interference. Accordingly the ground of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of carpets, challenged the disallowance of ?13,91,082 under section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee contended that the disallowance should not apply to dividend income as it was incidental to share purchase, and no expenditure was incurred for generating dividend income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance based on precedents, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the appellant's Authorized Representative. The representative highlighted that the investments comprised both dividend-yielding and non-dividend yielding assets, with the latter being strategic business moves rather than investments. The representative also cited judgments supporting the appellant's position, emphasizing the absence of tax-free income and the sufficiency of own funds for investments.

3. The Tribunal examined the computation of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules. It noted that interest payments were linked to specific export orders, making them attributable to non-exempt income. Citing relevant case law, including the Allahabad High Court and Bombay High Court decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. It held that no disallowance could be made for interest apportioned towards exempt income, but upheld the computation under rule 8D(2)(iii) as per the law.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, concluding that no addition should be made for interest apportioned to exempt income under rule 8D(2)(ii). However, it upheld the disallowance computation under rule 8D(2)(iii) as per the provisions. The judgment was pronounced on 22/03/2016.