2018 (3) TMI 82 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - It is a settled law that the disallowance cannot be more than exempt income. The Hon ble High Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. (2013 (9) TMI 876 - DELHI HIGH COURT) held that the disallowance cannot be more than exempt income. The computation of the income was before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) and the same should have been taken into consideration by the Revenue authority and appellate authority. In present assessee s case, the assessee has demonstrated that the assessee has not incurred any expenses to earn a dividend income in this particular Assessment Year and the Assessing Officer did not find any ambiguity regarding any expenditure directly or indirectly attributable to the investment made by the assessee. AO as well as the CIT(A) both have ignored this fact. Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. DR relied on various decisions and submitted that the assessed income cannot be below the return income especially when assessee has computed disallowance suo moto and paid tax in self assessment. The Ld. AR could not controvert the aove contentions of the Ld. DR. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to take congnizance of the same and accordingly compute the income of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose

Issues:
1. Application of section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax rules.
2. Disallowance of financial expenses related to investments.
3. Recognition of suo moto disallowance and deletion of additional disallowance.
4. Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A and calculation based on exempt income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application of section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax rules
The appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s decision not to direct the Assessing Officer to refrain from applying section 14A and rule 8D, arguing that the company had full accounting for its divisions and projects. The appellant contended that investments in subsidiary companies for operations should not be subject to disallowance under section 14A. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance under rule 8D, emphasizing that expenses incurred for earning exempt income must be considered, even if no exempt income was earned during the year. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the disallowance should be made based on expenses related to earning exempt income, not just the exempt income itself.

Issue 2: Disallowance of financial expenses related to investments
The Commissioner noted that financial expenses of ?4.74 crores were related to investments, while the Assessing Officer found no interest payment attributable to investments. The appellant argued for recognition of the suo moto disallowance and deletion of additional disallowance based on incorrect calculations. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, recognizing that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. The decision cited precedents to support the limitation of disallowance to the extent of exempt income.

Issue 3: Recognition of suo moto disallowance and deletion of additional disallowance
The appellant sought acknowledgment of the suo moto disallowance and deletion of the additional disallowance amount. The CIT(A) considered the appellant's arguments and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income accordingly. The decision emphasized that assessed income cannot be lower than the returned income, especially when the appellant had calculated disallowance suo moto and paid tax in self-assessment.

Issue 4: Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A and calculation based on exempt income
The appellant raised additional grounds related to restricting the disallowance of expenditure under section 14A to the extent of dividend income claimed exempt under section 10. The CIT(A) allowed the additional grounds, highlighting that disallowance should be calculated based on investments yielding exempt income, not all investments made during the relevant period. The decision emphasized that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the CIT(A) recognizing the limitations on disallowance under section 14A and rule 8D, and directing the Assessing Officer to consider the appellant's computations and compute the income accordingly.

← Previous Next →