2017 (5) TMI 1045 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of disallowance u/s 14A - exclusion of investments made by the assessee for working out the amount of average and investment for the purpose of computation of disallowance - Held that - From the records it can be seen that the investment was made prior to this assessment year. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that the investment was not a genuine investment. There is no nexus between the interest paid by the assessee and investment made in these companies there was no sufficient evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer as well while investing the dividend income and interest them merely doubting the investing because it is interest free loan cannot be under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Out of the existing investments, investments in M/s Munjal Kiriu Industries (P) Ltd., M/s Hero Chassis System (P) Ltd. and M/s Hero Global Design Ltd. were made in earlier years when the assessee had transferred its undertakings on slump sale basis., under which equity shares as per the approved scheme of de-merger were allotted to it. The assessee had made investments in equity shares of M/s Satyam Computers Ltd., which have been valued at ₹ 73,26,582, as on 31.03.2010 and also had made investments in Hero MVL Alternate Fuel (P) Ltd., a sister concern in the F.Y.2008-09. These investments held for yielding tax exempt dividend income. The assessee has not disallowed the expenses incurred for earning exempt income out of such investments and there is no evidence that working capital loan may not have been deployed for making such investment, therefore, the lack of satisfaction of the AO with the claim of the assessee that no expenses were incurred for earning dividend income from such investments. The AO while disallowing this has not brought on record anything to establish that the assessee had incurred any expenses while earning this exempt income and he has not given any finding in this respect. Therefore, the action of the AO in disallowing the dividend income u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is not just and proper. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A - Nexus between interest paid and investments made.
2. Application of Rule 8D for computing disallowance.
3. Disallowance of expenses attributable to exempt income.
4. Justification of interest-free advances made to sister concerns.
5. Disallowance under Section 14A without establishing expenditure for earning exempt income.

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A - Nexus between interest paid and investments made:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a certain amount under Section 14A as expenses attributable to exempt income. The CIT(A) upheld this decision but directed a re-computation under Rule 8D. The appellant argued that there was no nexus between the interest paid and investments made in certain companies. The Tribunal found that the investments were made in earlier years when the appellant had transferred its undertakings on a slump sale basis. There was no evidence to support the Assessing Officer's doubts regarding the investments, and the disallowance under Section 14A was deemed unjustified.

Issue 2: Application of Rule 8D for computing disallowance:
The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D to compute the expenses attributable to exempt income. The CIT(A) directed a re-computation and considered specific investments for the purpose of working out the average investment. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not established any expenses incurred while earning the exempt income, leading to the conclusion that the disallowance under Rule 8D was not appropriate.

Issue 3: Disallowance of expenses attributable to exempt income:
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses related to exempt income and added them back to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this decision but directed a re-computation based on specific investments. The Tribunal found that the disallowance was not justified as there was no evidence of expenses incurred for earning the dividend income from the investments.

Issue 4: Justification of interest-free advances made to sister concerns:
The Assessing Officer questioned the justification of interest-free advances made by the assessee to certain parties. The AO relied on legal precedents to argue that such advances without a business purpose were not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to establish a valid reason for disallowing the interest-free advances, especially in the absence of evidence showing a lack of business purpose.

Issue 5: Disallowance under Section 14A without establishing expenditure for earning exempt income:
The Tribunal referred to legal judgments emphasizing the need for a proximate cause for disallowance under Section 14A, specifically the relationship with tax-exempt income. The AO's failure to specify cogent reasons for disallowance and establish the expenditure for earning exempt income led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the legal principles outlined in relevant judgments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings based on the lack of nexus between interest paid and investments made, improper application of Rule 8D, unjustified disallowance of expenses attributable to exempt income, lack of justification for interest-free advances, and failure to establish expenditure for earning exempt income as required under Section 14A.