Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 805 - SC - Income Tax
Applicability of section 14A - Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income - principle of apportionment of expenses - whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessee would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment - retrospective or prospective - Different decision of different High Courts Held that - The entire dispute is as to what interpretation is to be given to the words in relation to in the given scenario, viz. where the dividend income on the shares is earned, though the dominant purpose for subscribing in those shares of the investee company was not to earn dividend. The dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant. No doubt, the assessee like Maxopp Investment Limited may have made the investment in order to gain control of the investee company. However, that does not appear to be a relevant factor in determining the issue at hand. Fact remains that such dividend income is non-taxable. In this scenario, if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word in relation to the income that does not form part of total income. Prior to introduction of Section 14A the law was that when an assessee had a composite and indivisible business which had elements of both taxable and non-taxable income, the entire expenditure in respect of said business was deductible and, in such a case, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure relating to the non-taxable income did not apply. The principle of apportionment was made available only where the business was divisible. It is to find a cure to the aforesaid problem that the Legislature has not only inserted Section 14A by the Finance (Amendment) Act, 2001 but also made it retrospective, i.e., 1962 when the Income Tax Act itself came into force. The aforesaid intent was expressed loudly and clearly in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2001. We, thus, agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Daga Capital Management (P.) Ltd. 2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court , and are not inclined to accept the opinion of Punjab Haryana High Court Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Patiala (2017 (2) TMI 125 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) which went by dominant purpose theory. The aforesaid reasoning would be applicable in cases where shares are held as investment in the investee company, may be for the purpose of having controlling interest therein. On that reasoning, appeals of Maxopp Investment Limited 2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court as well as similar cases where shares were purchased by the assessees to have controlling interest in the investee companies have to fail and are, therefore, dismissed. Where shares are held as stock-in-trade - Held that -when the shares are held as stock-in-trade , certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock-in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail 2017 (2) TMI 125 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove. Before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance u/s 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the AO was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the AO. Rule 8D of the Rules is prospective in nature and could not have been made applicable in respect of the Assessment Years prior to 2007 when this Rule was inserted.
9911796707
