2017 (7) TMI 863 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(iii) - Held that - In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO while making the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act invoked the provisions contained in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration as the same is applicable for the assessment year 2008-09 onward. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT reported in (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) held that Rules 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 inserted on 24.03.2008 is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 prospectively which cannot be applied retrospectively. It is also noticed that the AO while making the disallowance out of the expenses has not given any basis for making the disallowance @ 20%. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to decision deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh de novo in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO should also decide the another issues which have been agitated by the assessee in its appeal alongwith the main issues relating to the disallowances of interest u/s 14A of the Act and the expenses while framing the de novo assessment. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 14A and Rule 8D for assessment year 2007-08.
2. Disallowance of interest paid on loans for business purposes.
3. Disallowance of expenses under section 37(1) of the Act.
4. Disallowance of professional charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised concerns regarding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) not considering the legal interpretation of section 14A of the Income Tax Act and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules for the assessment year 2007-08. The appellant argued that the Commissioner erred in not applying Rule 8D, which was applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Rule 8D could not be applied retrospectively, as established by previous court judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.

2. The dispute also involved the disallowance of interest paid on loans raised for business purposes. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the interest under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal found that the disallowance was not adequately supported with a basis for the calculation. Following the principles established by the High Courts, the Tribunal set aside the decision and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue along with other contested matters during the reassessment process.

3. Another issue raised was the disallowance of expenses under section 37(1) of the Act, including vehicle running and maintenance costs, depreciation, and interest on loans. The Tribunal noted that certain expenses were disallowed without proper justification, especially considering that depreciation on vehicles and interest on loans could not be considered for disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision based on legal provisions.

4. Additionally, the case involved the disallowance of professional charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to the non-deduction of TDS. The Tribunal found that the disallowance lacked sufficient reasoning or basis. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the decision and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring proper consideration of all relevant factors and legal provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various issues raised by the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the need for reasoned decisions in tax assessments.