9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 855 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Investment in shares - HELD THAT - As investment to the extent in the books of the assessee is nothing but the shares transferred to the assessee pursuant to the aforesaid scheme of amalgamation with Essel Business Process Ltd. The Revenue has not brought any material to controvert the aforesaid facts as emanating from the material placed on record. Therefore, we are of the considered view that such investment cannot be considered for computation of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii), since no interest-bearing funds were utilised for the acquisition of the aforesaid investment. Balance investment Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. 2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT held that disallowance under section 14A would not be warranted where interest-free own funds exceed the investment in tax-free securities and in such a case the investment would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds. Therefore, we find no merit in disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge against the disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Details of the judgment: 1. Background and Assessment Proceedings: The appellant, a private limited company engaged in various businesses, filed its return of income for the relevant year, declaring a total income of Nil after claiming carry forward losses. During assessment, it was observed that the appellant earned exempt dividend income and debited a significant amount as interest on loans. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed a disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, which the appellant contested. 2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that part of its investments were received through an amalgamation scheme, and it had sufficient interest-free funds for the remaining investments. The appellant had already made a suo moto disallowance while filing the return. 3. AO and CIT(A) Decisions: The AO disallowed a substantial amount under section 14A read with Rule 8D, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to the appellant challenging the decision before the tribunal. 4. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: The tribunal reviewed the financials of the appellant and noted the details of investments and dividend income. It found that a significant portion of the investments was received through an amalgamation scheme and no interest-bearing funds were utilized for that part. Regarding the remaining investments, the tribunal observed that the appellant's own funds exceeded the value of investments, as per the precedents set by the High Court and Supreme Court. 5. Legal Precedents and Conclusion: Citing relevant judgments, the tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted under section 14A as the appellant's own funds exceeded the investments for earning exempt income. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deemed unjustified, and the tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal. 6. Final Decision: The tribunal allowed the appeal by the appellant, and the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on the specified date. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
