2022 (2) TMI 1057 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Mandation of recording satisfaction - as per assessee in absence of recording of proper satisfaction, the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not correct - HELD THAT - Assessee has received dividend income only in respect of one scrip and the average investment - We find, the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI has held that only the investments that has yielded exempt income during the year has to be considered for computing the average value of investment u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that for the purpose of provisions of section 14A, instead of taking into account the total investment, the investment attributable to dividend was required to be adopted and, thereafter, the disallowance was to be arrived at. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to recompute the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D by considering the investments which has actually yielded dividend income and decide the issue as per fact and law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D for investment made yielding exempt income.

Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The appeal is against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Delhi, for AY 2014-15. The assessee, a company trading in precious metals, declared a loss in its income tax return. The AO asked for justification for not making disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D for investments yielding exempt income.

2. AO's Disallowance and CIT(A)'s Decision:
The AO disallowed a specific amount under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, which the CIT(A) upheld. The appellant argued that the disallowance should be deleted as no dividend was received from the investments in question. However, the CIT(A) found that exempt income was earned from investments held during the year, justifying the disallowance.

3. Appellant's Grounds before Tribunal:
The appellant challenged the disallowance before the Tribunal, citing errors in law and facts by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that the disallowance was incorrectly made without proper statutory satisfaction and that the computation under Rule 8D was excessive.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal considered the arguments and legal precedents. It noted that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Referring to relevant case laws, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance by considering only investments that yielded dividend income. The issue was remanded to the AO for proper determination.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a reevaluation of the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The decision highlighted the importance of considering only investments generating exempt income for the disallowance calculation. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal principles and factual accuracy in determining disallowances under tax laws.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D based on the legal judgment of the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi for the relevant assessment year.