9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 572 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - disallowance of interest u/s 14A and on account of other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) - disallowance exceeding exempt income - HELD THAT - We find in the case of PCIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala 2018 (4) TMI 23 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT has held that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has to be restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not at a higher figure. also confirmed by Hon ble Apex Court. Also in the case of PCIT Vs Caraf Builders & Construction (P) Ltd. 2018 (12) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT after considering the decisions of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , Cheminvest Vs. CIT 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT and other decisions has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income of the relevant year. In the present case, since assessee has earned exempt income from dividends only to the extent of ₹ 3,705/-, we relying on the aforesaid decisions direct the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act be restricted to the extent of exempt income i.e., ₹ 3,705/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Disallowance of Interest and other expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. - Disallowance calculation based on Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. - Availability of interest-free funds in relation to investments. - Disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii). - Restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt income. Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest and other expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The appeal involved the disallowance of Interest and other expenses amounting to a specific sum under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested the disallowance, arguing that the CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming it without fully appreciating the case's facts and circumstances. The appellant sought the deletion of the addition. Issue 2: Disallowance calculation based on Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules: The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Income Tax Rules to compute the disallowance of interest and other expenses under section 14A. The AO determined the total disallowance and disallowed the specified amount. The appellant challenged this calculation, leading to the appeal before the tribunal. Issue 3: Availability of interest-free funds in relation to investments: The appellant argued that there were sufficient interest-free funds available in the form of Share capital and Reserves and Surplus, which exceeded the investments made. Citing a decision by the Bombay High Court, the appellant contended that when own funds exceed investments, no disallowance of interest under section 14A is warranted. The tribunal considered this argument in its decision. Issue 4: Disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii): Apart from the interest disallowance, the AO also disallowed administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The appellant highlighted that the exempt income earned was significantly lower than the disallowed amount. Relying on relevant case law, the tribunal directed the disallowance to be restricted to the extent of the exempt income earned. Issue 5: Restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt income: The tribunal, following decisions by various High Courts and considering the appellant's exempt income from dividends, restricted the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of the exempt income earned. This restriction aligned with legal precedents and resulted in the partial allowance of the appellant's grounds. In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, focusing on the disallowance of interest and administrative expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The decision emphasized the availability of interest-free funds, the calculation methodology based on Rule 8D, and the restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt income earned by the appellant. The tribunal's ruling provided clarity on the application of relevant provisions and legal principles in determining the allowable disallowances in the case.
|
