2017 (1) TMI 318 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that - The exemption extended to dividend income would relate only to the previous year when the income was earned and none other and consequently the expenditure incurred in connection therewith should also be dealt with in the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income. (Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court )). The language of s.14A (1) should be read in that context and such that it advances the scheme of the Act rather than distort it. In conclusion, we are of the view that the provisions of s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be made applicable in a vacuum i.e. in the absence of exempt income. The questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department

Issues:
1. Interpretation of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act when no exempt income is earned.
2. Confirmation of disallowance under Section 14A without actual receipt of exempt income.
3. Interpretation of Rule 8D within the framework of Section 14A.
4. Applicability of Section 14A to investments made for business expediency.
5. Prospective application of Rule 8D inserted in 2008.

Issue 1:
The appeal raised questions regarding the applicability of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act when no exempt income has been earned. The case involved an assessment year where the assessee had investments in Indian Companies but had not received any returns. The assessing officer proposed a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D despite no exempt income being earned. The Dispute Resolution Panel and the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance based on precedents. The court analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 14A and ruled that disallowance cannot be made in the absence of exempt income.

Issue 2:
The second substantial question raised was about confirming the disallowance under Section 14A without the actual receipt of exempt income. The court considered the arguments presented by both sides. The Revenue contended that Section 14A applies even if there is a possibility of earning exempt income in the future, citing a Circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that Section 14A is meant to prevent the deduction of expenses related to exempt income against taxable income. The court held that Section 14A pertains to actual income, not notional or anticipated income.

Issue 3:
Regarding the interpretation of Rule 8D within the framework of Section 14A, the court examined the computation of disallowance involving direct and indirect attribution. It was argued that accepting the Revenue's stance would lead to an artificial method of computation on notional income. The court rejected this approach, stating that Section 14A is linked to the earning of actual income and should not be applied to notional or assumed income.

Issue 4:
The question of whether Section 14A can be invoked for investments made for business expediency rather than for earning dividends was also raised. The court referred to relevant decisions and emphasized that Section 14A is intended to prevent the deduction of expenses related to exempt income. It ruled that the provision should be applied in the context of actual income earned, not hypothetical scenarios.

Issue 5:
Finally, the issue of the prospective application of Rule 8D inserted in 2008 was addressed. The court concluded that Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be applied in the absence of exempt income. The judgment favored the assessee, ruling against the department and allowing the appeal without costs.

← Previous Next →