9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 496 - AT - Income TaxDisallowing the additional amount u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(i) on account of interest expenditure directly relating to earning the exempt income - Held that - The investments in the subsidiary company are out of commercial expediency and made from the strategic point of view in order to gain control over the said subsidiary company and not to earn dividend. As in Max Opp Investments Ltd Vs CIT 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that the disallowance has to be made even in case of strategic investments in the associate company. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the apex court we uphold the order of CIT(A) . The ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. MAT computation - addition made u/s 14A - Held that - Addition made under section 14A while computing the profit under MAT provision is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI wherein it has been held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section14A read with rule 8D of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition while computing book profit under MAT Addition of interest not allowable under section 36(1)(iii) - Held that - The advances were either transferred to the assessee company from those subsidiary which merged with the assessee w.e.f. 01.04.10 or given to subsidiary out of commercial expediency for purchase of flat are under business commitment under MOU entered into by the assessee with M/s. Smit Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. We observe that all the advances are connected with the business of the assessee and none was given for non business purposes. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT). We are not in agreement with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that advances were given for non business purposes and nor out of commercial consideration. Consequently, the disallowance of interest amounting affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for interest expenditure on exempt income. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for MAT provisions. 3. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for interest expenditure on exempt income: The assessee contested the disallowance of ?30,82,192 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) for interest expenditure directly related to earning exempt income. The assessee argued that the investment in M/s. Sharyans Resources Ltd., a group company, was made out of commercial expediency and strategic investment to gain control, not to earn dividends. The assessee relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. However, the AO and CIT(A) disallowed the expenditure, citing that interest-bearing funds were used for investments capable of earning exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Max Opp Investments Ltd vs. CIT, which mandates disallowance even for strategic investments. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for MAT provisions: The assessee argued that the disallowance of ?30,82,192 under MAT provisions should not be made, citing the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., which states that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) should be made without resorting to Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, directing the AO to delete the addition while computing book profit under MAT. 3. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the disallowance of ?1,37,64,648 on account of interest not allowable under Section 36(1)(iii). The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the interest, arguing that the funds were not advanced for business purposes. The assessee contended that the advances were made out of commercial expediency to subsidiaries and other entities, some of which later merged with the assessee company. The Tribunal examined the detailed utilization chart and found that the advances were either transferred to the assessee company from merged subsidiaries or given out of commercial expediency. The Tribunal concluded that the advances were connected with the assessee's business, citing the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders vs. CIT, and directed the AO to delete the disallowance. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for interest expenditure on exempt income but allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance under MAT provisions and the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). The AO was directed to delete the additions accordingly.
|
