9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 863 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s. 14A - Held that - It is admitted fact that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds to the subsidiaries and the Bench asked a specific question with the ld.A.R to show whether there is any case wherein decided the similar issue in favour of assessee, when the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds to the subsidiaries while invoking the provisions of the section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. For which the ld.A.R expresses his inability. Hence, in our opinion when the assessee diverted the interest bearing funds to subsidiaries, and there is no commercial expediency, provisions of the section 14A r.w.Rule 8D is applicable - Decided against assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(iii). 3. Consideration of precedents set by the Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal. 4. Consideration of various pleas raised by the appellant. 5. Calculation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Disallowance under Section 14A: The assessee, a Public Limited Company engaged in construction and related services, filed its return for the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed ?2,61,96,790/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D were applicable as the assessee had invested in funds yielding no income or exempt income. 2. Interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(iii): The assessee argued that the interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(iii) was incorrect, as it prescribes that expenditure should be calculated by applying 0.5% to the average value of investments that do not form part of the total income, rather than the entire investments. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions and upheld the AO's interpretation, stating that the disallowance was correctly calculated as per the rule. 3. Consideration of Precedents: The assessee cited several precedents, including CIT Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd, EID Parry India Vs. ACIT, and others, arguing that these decisions were not considered. The Tribunal noted that these precedents were either not applicable to the facts of the case or pertained to periods before the introduction of Rule 8D. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D were applicable post its introduction in 2008. 4. Consideration of Various Pleas Raised by the Appellant: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not consider various pleas, such as investments being made out of own funds and disallowance for investments in subsidiary companies. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adequately addressed these issues and that the arguments raised by the assessee lacked merit. It was noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate any commercial expediency for diverting interest-bearing funds to subsidiaries. 5. Calculation of Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii): The Tribunal reviewed the calculation of disallowance, confirming that the AO had correctly applied 0.5% to the average value of investments yielding no income or exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's argument that disallowance should be limited to the amount of exempt income earned, citing statutory provisions and judicial precedents that support the AO's approach. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Tribunal upheld the AO's interpretation and calculation, and found no merit in the assessee's arguments regarding precedents, various pleas, and the interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(iii). The decision was pronounced in the open court on 20th May, 2016, at Chennai.
|
