2018 (9) TMI 700 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A - assessee not earned any exempt dividend income - Held that - As in the earlier and subsequent assessment years also, there was no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act even though the investments were made by the assessee. Therefore,we hold that the provisions of Sec. 14A are not applicable to the case of assessee, as it has not earned any exempt dividend income during the relevant assessment year. Disallowance of the balance of the interest expenditure which has not been disallowed u/s 14A - Held that - The assessee has given interest free loans to its sisters concerns but the advances are not out of interest bearing funds and the nexus between the loan taken from SBI on the hypothecation of sundry debtors is clearly proved. Therefore, we do not see any reason as to why the CIT(A), should have remitted the matter back to the A.O for verification. Ground of appeal No. 3 accordingly allowed. TDS u/s 195 - payments been made to the non-resident outside India, for the services rendered by her outside India - Held that - We find that the assessee has paid commission to Mrs. Sandhya Prakash for the liasioning work done by her outside India. The argument of the assessee that for making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) the presumption is that the same is allowable u/s 37 of the IT Act was not raised by the assessee before the authorities below. Even if the same is acceptable and the said expenditure is allowable u/s 37 of the Act, the applicability of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act requires the assessee to prove that the income of the recipient is not taxable in India. None of the authorities below have examined this issue and the assessee has also not filed any documents to disprove the finding of the Revenue. Therefore, accepting the assessee s plea that the assessee, may be given an opportunity to produce the relevant documents to prove that Mrs. Sandhya Prakash has rendered services to the assessee warranting the payment of commission, we deem it fit and proper to remand this issue to the file of the A.O

Summary

Issues:
Cross appeals for the A.Y 2011-12; Disallowance of interest u/s 14A; Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) paid to Mrs. Sandhya Prakash.

Analysis:
1. The case involves cross appeals for the Assessment Year 2011-12, filed by both the assessee and the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad dated 05.08.2015.
2. The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of interest under section 14A of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer proposed disallowances under various heads, including interest disallowance related to loans and advances. The CIT(A) partially upheld the additions made by the AO, leading to further appeals from both parties.
3. The assessee contested the disallowance of interest under section 14A, arguing that no dividend income was earned from investments during the relevant assessment year. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that section 14A did not apply as no exempt dividend income was earned.
4. Another issue involved the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) concerning payments made to Mrs. Sandhya Prakash. The assessee claimed that the payments were for services rendered outside India and thus not taxable in India. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for further verification and documentation to prove the nature of services rendered by Mrs. Sandhya Prakash.
5. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly for statistical purposes, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The decision was pronounced on 16th March 2018 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad, comprising Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member, and Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues and the Tribunal's findings in the given legal judgment.