2021 (9) TMI 843 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - not allowing deduction towards suo motu disallowance computed by the assessee - As argued no satisfaction from the AO as required u/s.14A(2) of the Act having regard to books of account of the assessee that suo motu disallowance made is not correct - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has rectified said mistake and allowed deduction towards suo motu disallowance computed by the assessee and confirmed of net disallowance of ₹ 7,08,80,379/-. Hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of the CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on leasehold improvements under normal provisions of the Act and computation of book profit u/s. 115JB - AO expenditure incurred for improvements to leasehold building on the ground that said expenditure is in the nature of capital expenditure which cannot be allowed as deduction - HELD THAT - The issue needs to go back to the file of Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in light of claim of the assessee that it has spent for improvements to leasehold building, which is in the nature of temporary structures. Therefore, we set aside the issue and direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue and decide in accordance with law. Similarly, ground taken by the assessee challenging adjustments made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of depreciation on leasehold improvements to book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act is also set aside to file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to reconsider the issue in light of our observations given hereinabove. Disallowance of interest on TDS u/s. 40(a)(ii) under MAT provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has set aside issue of disallowance of interest on TDS under normal provisions of the Act to the file of Assessing Officer to ascertain fact whether the assessee has debited said expenditure into profit loss account or not in light of various evidences filed by the assessee, including copy of tax audit report as well as financial statements, where no such expenditure was debited into profit loss account. Since the issue has been set aside to the file of AO, additions made towards said expenditure under MAT provisions also needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer, because additions if any, needs to be made to MAT provisions is fully depends upon additions made towards said expenditure under normal provisions of the Act. Hence, we set aside this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to reconsider the issue along with disallowances made under normal provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. Deduction towards education cess secondary and higher education cess u/s. 37(1) - HELD THAT - We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has considered an identical issue in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd.( 2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and held that education cess secondary and higher education cess are liable for deduction in computing income chargeable under head of 'profits and gains of business or profession' - There is merit in the additional grounds filed by the assessee requesting deduction for education cess secondary and higher education cess, as business expenditure deductible u/s. 37(1) - But, fact remains that assessee has taken up this issue for the first time by filing additional grounds and the Assessing Officer did not have any occasion to examine claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that issue needs to go back to file of the Assessing Officer and hence, we set aside this issue to file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to re-examine claim of the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2. Disallowance of depreciation on leasehold improvements.
3. Disallowance of interest on TDS under MAT provisions.
4. Deduction towards education cess & secondary and higher education cess under Section 37(1).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962:
The assessee made investments generating exempt income and computed a suo motu disallowance of ?5,52,12,116 under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this computation, invoking Rule 8D, and determined a disallowance of ?12,60,92,495. The CIT(A) upheld the applicability of Rule 8D but reduced the disallowance to ?7,08,80,379 after accounting for the assessee's suo motu disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the AO recorded satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) regarding the inadequacy of the assessee's disallowance, thus justifying the application of Rule 8D. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the net disallowance of ?7,08,80,379.

2. Disallowance of depreciation on leasehold improvements:
The AO treated the expenditure on leasehold improvements as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation at 15% applicable to furniture and fittings and disallowed the remaining amount. The assessee argued for 100% depreciation under entry 4 in Part A(1) to New Appendix-I of I.T. Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found the nature of the expenditure unclear and remanded the issue to the AO to re-examine whether the improvements constituted temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to reconsider adjustments to book profit under Section 115JB based on the findings.

3. Disallowance of interest on TDS under MAT provisions:
The CIT(A) remanded the issue of disallowance of interest on TDS under normal provisions to the AO to verify if the expenditure was debited in the profit & loss account. The Tribunal extended this remand to include disallowance under MAT provisions, directing the AO to reconsider the issue in conjunction with the normal provisions.

4. Deduction towards education cess & secondary and higher education cess under Section 37(1):
The assessee raised an additional ground claiming deduction for education cess & secondary and higher education cess as business expenditure. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, noting it was a legal issue not requiring further fact-finding. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court decision in Sesa Goa Ltd. and the Rajasthan High Court decision in Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., which allowed such deductions. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for re-examination in light of these decisions.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remanded to the AO for further examination and re-computation in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and relevant judicial precedents.