2023 (3) TMI 675 - HC - Income Tax

Entitled to claim the left over portion of depreciation being the carry forward figure from the previous year u/s 32(1)(iia) - HELD THAT - Same issue arose in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 2015 (5) TMI 647 - ITAT KOLKATA the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Thus, following the said decision, the substantial question of law (ii) is answered against the revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee has sufficient own funds - HELD THAT - Tribunal after taking note of the factual position found that the assessing officer has not examined the accounts of the assessee and there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer about the correctness of the claim of the assessee and without doing so, he has invoked Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules which is impermissible in law. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal had perused a chart which was produced by the assessee before the learned Tribunal setting out the financial position of the assessee. From the said chart the learned Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds which are several times more than the investments made by the assessee and, therefore, it can be concluded that the borrowed funds have not been utilised for the purpose of making investments. After recording such a factual position, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the assessing officer could not have invoked Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. See Century Plyboards (I) Ltd., 2022 (9) TMI 1040 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of interest expenditure.
2. Claiming the leftover portion of depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 14A and Rule 8D(2)(ii):
The High Court addressed the issue of whether interest expenditure should be considered while calculating the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the assessing officer did not examine the accounts of the assessee nor recorded satisfaction about the correctness of the claim. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds, significantly more than the investments made, indicating that borrowed funds were not utilized for investments. Relying on precedents, including a decision involving Kesoram Industries Ltd. and the Supreme Court's ruling in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court held that the assessing officer cannot invoke Rule 8D(2)(ii) without proper examination and satisfaction. The Court emphasized the need for the assessing officer to record satisfaction before applying computation modes as per Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.

2. Claiming Leftover Depreciation:
Regarding the claim for the leftover portion of depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, the Court referred to a previous case involving the same issue for the assessment year 2006-07, where the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Citing this precedent, the Court answered this substantial question of law against the revenue, indicating that the assessee is entitled to claim the leftover depreciation amount. The Court's decision was based on the factual and legal positions, affirming that the substantial question of law in this regard is to be answered against the revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal and answered both substantial questions of law against the revenue. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper examination and satisfaction by the assessing officer before invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) for disallowance calculations under Section 14A. Additionally, based on previous rulings and legal principles, the Court upheld the assessee's right to claim the leftover depreciation amount under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.