2018 (2) TMI 1158 - HC - Income Tax

Additions u/s. 14A in respect investments in subsidiary company - application of Rule of consistency - sufficiency of own funds - Held that - For the relevant Assessment Year, Assessee has not earned any tax free income, the corresponding expenditure incurred cannot be taken into consideration for dis-allowance. See Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Rivian International (P.) Ltd. 2017 (12) TMI 811 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Question of law regarding disallowance under Section 14A for investments in subsidiary company and distinction between controlling and non-controlling stake.

Analysis:
The Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenge the common order dated 17th December 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. The Revenue questions the Tribunal's decision on the applicability of Section 14A concerning investments in a subsidiary company. The first issue raised is whether disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of the Assessee claiming any income to be exempt in the subject Assessment Year. The Tribunal relied on precedents to support its finding that if no income is claimed as exempt, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This finding was accepted by the Revenue, as seen in a previous case. The Tribunal's decision aligns with previous judgments that expenditure cannot be considered for disallowance if no tax-free income is earned in the relevant Assessment Year.

The second issue pertains to the Tribunal's distinction between investments in a subsidiary company for controlling stake and non-controlling stake concerning the applicability of Section 14A. The Revenue raises questions on this distinction, but since the Tribunal's finding on the first issue was accepted and not challenged, the questions raised by the Revenue become academic. Consequently, none of the questions raised give rise to substantial questions of law based on the present facts. Therefore, the Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.