2018 (6) TMI 1237 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance 14A read with Rule 8D - non recording of satisfaction - Held that - The disallowance under Section 14A cannot be a wild guesswork bereft of ground realities. It has to have a reasonable and close nexus with the factually incurred expenses. It is not deemed disallowance under Section 14A of the Act but an enabling provision for assessing authority to compute the same on the given facts and figures in the regularly maintained Books of Accounts. The assessing authority also could not have called upon the Assessee himself to undertake the exercise of computing the disallowance under Section 8D of the Rules. Such abdication of duty in not permissible in law. See THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S MICROLABS LTD. 2016 (4) TMI 219 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in relation to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income.
2. Application of Rule 8D of the Rules in determining disallowance under Section 14A.
3. Consideration of judicial pronouncements in deciding disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A.

Analysis:
1. The High Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income. The Revenue filed appeals under Section 260-A, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to disallowance of expenditure by the Assessee, M/s. Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd., to earn exempted income from dividends. The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties regarding the necessity of disallowance based on the investments made by the Assessee.

2. The Court discussed the application of Rule 8D of the Rules in determining the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal's findings and reasons were analyzed, where it was observed that the Assessing Authority had disallowed an amount as expenditure incurred on earning exempt income, which the Assessee contested. The Court considered the arguments presented by the learned Authorised Representative, who relied on decisions of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, to support the Assessee's position that no disallowance should be made beyond the exempt income earned.

3. The Court considered various judicial pronouncements in deciding the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd., which emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to provide cogent reasons if disbelieving the Assessee's claim of not incurring expenditure to earn exempt income. The Court also cited judgments of the Bombay High Court to support the Assessee's argument that disallowance should not exceed the expenses claimed. The Court highlighted the importance of a rational nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income earned to justify disallowance under Section 14A.

4. The Court referred to two previous judgments of the High Court, including Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Microlabs Ltd., and M/s.Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, to support its decision. These judgments provided guidance on the disallowance of interest expenses and the need for a rational estimation of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income. Based on the comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and rejected the Stay Application, concluding that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's findings.