9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1054 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A read with rule 8D - HELD THAT - AO has failed to establish any expenses out of total expenses claimed by the assessee to be relating to the exempt income and in absence of any direct nexus between expenditure and exempt income, the AO can not invoke provisions of section 14A of the Act to disallow the said expenses as has been held in the case of Leena Kasbekar vs. ACIT 2017 (8) TMI 845 - ITAT MUMBAI . It would be reasonable if a reasonable disallowance is worked out by applying the percentage on the total expenses of ₹ 67,35,894/- as has been calculated hereinabove. A.R. during the course of hearing prayed before the Bench to apply a percentage of 2% to 5% of the said expenses, however, we are not convinced with the arguments of A.R. on this issue. 10% of the said expenses would be reasonable disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) in this case. Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 6,73,589/- is sustained by reversing the order of Ld. CIT(A) and AO is directed to delete the remaining disallowance. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Issues:
Confirmation of addition under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Act and challenge to addition/disallowance to book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2014-15, focusing on the addition of ?53,95,230 made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Act, which was approximately 80.10% of the actual expenses claimed of ?67,35,894. Additionally, the assessee challenged the addition/disallowance to the book profit as computed under section 115JB of the Act. 2. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee received exempt income through dividends, interest, and profit on the sale of investments amounting to ?7,98,91,254. The assessee claimed total expenses of ?1,56,74,085, of which only ?67,35,894 was claimed, while the remaining ?89,38,191 was considered exclusive to the business. The AO disallowed ?65,87,383, resulting in a net addition of ?65,22,800. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by working out a disallowance of ?53,95,230, considering the proportionate expenses in the ratio of exempt income to total income. The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's calculation and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance. The Tribunal noted the expenses claimed in the profit & loss account and after adjustments, the net expenses were ?67,35,894. 4. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion of attributing expenses to earning exempt income in a specific ratio. It noted that the majority of expenses were for the business's operation and not related to exempt income. Referring to a previous tribunal decision, the Tribunal held that a lump sum disallowance under rule 8D2(iii) was not justified. As the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between expenses and exempt income, the Tribunal held that a reasonable disallowance should be calculated as a percentage of total expenses. 5. The Tribunal determined a reasonable disallowance of 10% of the total expenses, amounting to ?6,73,589, and directed the deletion of the remaining disallowance. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the order was pronounced on 15.05.2019.
|
