2016 (12) TMI 801 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that - The assessee admittedly borrowed funds for the purpose of business and paid interest. The interest paid by the assessee is not relatable to any particular income. Therefore, the second limb of Rule 8D(2) is squarely applicable. We have carefully gone through the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has found that there was no direct expenditure relating to income which does not form part of total income. Therefore, he computed the disallowance under the second limb of Rule 8D(2) and also computed the average amount / expenditure to the extent of ₹ 8,66,34,771/-. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.- Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal against the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main contention raised by the assessee was that no borrowed funds were used for investments earning exempt income, and the investments were made out of its own funds. The assessee argued that since no claim was made, there was no basis for the disallowance. The Assessing Officer, however, found that the assessee should have incurred certain expenditures considering the volume of investments made. The disallowance was computed under Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides.

The Tribunal observed that when borrowed funds are mixed with the assessee's own funds, and it is not possible to identify which part of the funds was used for investments, the second limb of Rule 8D(2) would be applicable. In this case, the interest paid on borrowed funds was not directly related to any particular income earned by the assessee, leading to the application of Rule 8D(2)(ii) for computation of disallowance.

Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal distinguished the current scenario where the assessee had borrowed funds for business purposes and paid interest not directly linked to any specific income. Consequently, the second limb of Rule 8D(2) was deemed applicable for computing the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under the relevant rule.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order of the lower authority was affirmed, and no interference was deemed necessary by the Tribunal.