2016 (7) TMI 1040 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses relatable to earning exempted income by invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that - Revenue has not disputed the availability of assessee s own interest free funds as detailed out by the assessee before the learned CIT (A) and now before us also. Hence, this being the position, the issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). In view of the above facts, we delete the disallowance in respect to interest. As regards to the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) in respect to 0.5% of the average value of the investments, we find that none of the authorities below has found fault with the computation made by the assessee in respect to disallowance of 0.5% of average value of the investments. Hence, this being the position and the correctness being not challenged, no further disallowance can be made. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of expenses relatable to earning exempted income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the disallowance of expenses related to earning exempted income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses claimed by the assessee, considering the earnings of exempt income through dividends and interest on PPF. The AO contended that the expenses incurred must have been for earning the exempt income. The assessee made certain disallowances under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, but the AO found the working unacceptable due to the absence of disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The AO calculated disallowances under different rules, leading to an appeal by the assessee before the CIT (A).

The CIT (A) confirmed the AO's disallowance of interest expenses, emphasizing the need for the assessee to demonstrate that investments were made from interest-free funds. The CIT (A) held that without clear evidence of utilizing interest-free funds for investments, disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was necessary. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal against the CIT (A)'s decision.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee presented a detailed statement of expenditure and disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee argued that no disallowance was warranted under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as non-interest bearing funds exceeded the investment in shares. The Tribunal considered the computations provided by the assessee and found no fault in the disallowance of 0.5% of the average value of investments, ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the disallowance in respect of interest and confirming that no further disallowance was necessary regarding the 0.5% of the average value of investments. The decision was based on the availability of the assessee's own interest-free funds, as supported by detailed evidence presented before the authorities. The Tribunal's judgment aligned with the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case, leading to the favorable outcome for the assessee.