2023 (9) TMI 1230 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of CSR expenses - Nature of expenses - Revenue or capital expenses - AO treated the CSR expenses as capital expenditure - HELD THAT - Revenue in all fairness conceded that the issue pertaining to CSR expenses already stands covered by a judgment titled PCIT vs Steel Authority of India Ltd 2023 (1) TMI 779 - DELHI HIGH COURT Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A - assessee had invested substantial money in mutual funds, dividend whereon is exempt from tax; and that the respondent/assessee also held shares of a joint venture company, which shares being assets, can yield exempt income - Assessee contends that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to earning of exempt income - HELD THAT - As recording the disbelief, the Assessing Officer did not examine even a shred of accounts of the respondent/assessee. Without looking into accounts of the respondent/assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the respondent/assessee had infused funds by way of equity in the joint venture company and also held that it was not believable that no expenditure had been incurred in relation to the assets, income wherefrom does not form part of total income. Completely ignoring the version of the respondent/assessee that being a cash rich company, it did not have to deploy any person by way of any special effort which could be treated as expenditure to earn the exempted income, the Assessing Officer recorded a conclusion that the respondent/assessee had infused significant funds by way of equity in the joint venture company. No cogent reasons, much less supported by data extracted from accounts of the respondent/assessee were advanced by the Assessing Officer to explain why the case set up by the respondent/assessee was not believable. Even the quantification of the disallowance was carried out under Rule 8D(iii) of the Rules without scrutinizing the accounts of the respondent/assessee and by jumping over the mandate to first proceed under Section 14A of the Act. Such conjectural decision of the Assessing Officer, that too, to the prejudice of the respondent/assessee cannot be sustained. Therefore, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and the same is upheld, answering the question of law framed above against the appellant/revenue and in favour of the respondent/assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses.
2. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

Summary:

Disallowance of CSR Expenses: The respondent/assessee, a public sector undertaking, filed its return for AY 2014-15, declaring an income of Rs. 512,53,01,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 3,96,00,919/- to the total income, treating CSR expenses as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this view. However, the Tribunal, relying on its earlier decisions for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, allowed the appeal, holding that CSR expenses are not capital in nature and should not be disallowed.

Disallowance under Section 14A: The AO disallowed Rs. 1,92,91,622/- under Section 14A, asserting that the respondent/assessee had invested in mutual funds and shares, which yield exempt income, and thus, related expenses should be disallowed. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the Tribunal, referring to its earlier orders, deleted the disallowance, stating that the AO did not record his satisfaction about the correctness of the assessee's claim, as required by law.

High Court's Decision: The High Court noted that the issue regarding CSR expenses was already covered by a previous judgment (PCIT vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.), and thus, only the disallowance under Section 14A was considered. The court emphasized that the AO must record his satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim after examining the accounts, as per Section 14A(2). The AO's failure to do so in this case rendered the disallowance unsustainable. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and answering the question of law in favor of the respondent/assessee.