2023 (6) TMI 480 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - profits from shares where held as stock in trade and not as investments - disallowance of expenditure towards exempted income - HELD THAT - We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Benches in the assessee s own case for AY 2013-14 2020 (3) TMI 713 - ITAT CHENNAI where the Tribunal by following the decision in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd 2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT held that shares securities held by the bank or guarantor and income received for such shares securities must be considered as business income, and consequently, provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act, would not be attracted to such income. In the case of M/s.Canara Bank 2023 (1) TMI 243 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT had considered an identical issue and by following the decision in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. 2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT held that provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act, are not applicable in case of banking companies, where dividend income has to be considered as business income. In the case of PCIT v. Punjab National Bank 2022 (6) TMI 85 - DELHI HIGH COURT had also considered an identical issue and by considering the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT held that provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act, will not apply on profits from shares where held as stock in trade and not as investments. The sum and substance of ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble High Courts are that in case of banking companies were shares securities are held as stock in trade, dividend income is considered as business income, and consequently, provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act, cannot be applied. We direct the AO to delete additions made towards disallowance of proportionate expenses relatable to exempt income for all assessment years.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure relating to tax-free income.
2. Depreciation claims on leased assets.
3. Pension payments to bank employees.
4. Classification of software expenses.
5. Disallowance of expenses incurred to increase authorized capital.
6. Provision for wage revision.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Expenditure Relating to Tax-Free Income:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made a proportionate disallowance of 2% of the exempt income, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, the Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT, held that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D do not apply to banking companies where exempt income is considered business income. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made towards disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt income for all assessment years.

2. Depreciation Claims on Leased Assets:
The assessee contended that the lease agreements with M/s Rajender Steels Ltd. and M/s Aruna Textiles & Exports Ltd. were genuine and that depreciation claims on the leased assets were valid. The CIT(A) had remitted some issues to the AO, including depreciation on leased assets, but the Tribunal did not specifically address the outcome of this remittance in the present judgment.

3. Pension Payments to Bank Employees:
The Tribunal considered the issue of pension payments made by the bank directly to pensioners during the pendency of an exemption application with the CBDT. The CIT(A) had disallowed the claim on the grounds that the payments were not made to an approved pension fund. The Tribunal, however, acknowledged that the pension payments were made wholly and exclusively for business purposes and were not for personal or private purposes. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the present judgment.

4. Classification of Software Expenses:
The assessee argued that software expenses should be classified as revenue expenditure, citing an earlier ITAT order. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the present judgment.

5. Disallowance of Expenses Incurred to Increase Authorized Capital:
The CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance of expenses incurred to increase authorized capital, amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the present judgment.

6. Provision for Wage Revision:
The Tribunal considered the issue of provision for wage revision, which the CIT(A) had disallowed. The assessee argued that the liability for wage revision was certain and not contingent. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the present judgment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for all assessment years, primarily addressing the disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt income and directing the AO to delete the additions made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The other issues raised by the assessee were not specifically addressed in the present judgment.