9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 34 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r/w rule 8D - addition under Rule 8D(2) - CIT(Appeals) restored the issue to AO with a direction to compute the disallowance keeping in view the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v/s CIT 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - It is well settled that while computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO can consider only those investments which have yielded dividend income during the year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance of expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) has to be made with reference to the investment of ₹ 5,39,000, which yielded dividend income of ₹ 38,900. This view of ours is as per the ratio laid down in Cheminvest Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI We direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A the amount already disallowed by the assessee. The grounds are allowed. Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) - as assessee has diverted interest bearing funds for non business purpose by investing in jewellery and shares, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT - From the facts and material available on record, it is evident that the assessee had surplus fund of ₹ 92.30 crore available with it. Therefore, the presumption would be, the investments in jewellery and shares must have been made out of the surplus funds available with the assessee. That being the case, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act can be made. See M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD 2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT ,RELIANCE UTILITIES POWER LTD. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and M/S HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. 2017 (8) TMI 185 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Challenge to disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w rule 8D. 2. Challenge to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w rule 8D: The appeal challenged the disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, r/w rule 8D. The assessee, a company engaged in trading, filed its return for the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer noted investments in non-current assets and exempt dividend income. The disallowance made was contested, and the first appellate authority directed a re-calculation based on a Supreme Court decision. The Authorised Representative argued against the disallowance of interest expenditure and administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) respectively. The Tribunal found that no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted due to surplus funds available with the assessee. The disallowance of administrative expenditure was limited to investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee. Issue 2: Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act: The second challenge was against the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure based on investments in jewellery and shares, alleging diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes. The Authorised Representative contended that no disallowance was justified as the investments were presumed to be made from interest-free funds. Relying on various court decisions, it was argued that no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) should be made. The Tribunal agreed, noting the surplus funds available with the assessee, and deleted the disallowance. In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee and deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) based on the presumption that investments were made from surplus funds. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal provisions and established precedents in determining disallowances under the Income Tax Act.
|
