Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (5) TMI 1112 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Sustainability of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D.
2. Validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for making disallowance u/s 14A.
3. Requirement of satisfaction by the A.O regarding the correctness of the claim of the assessee.

Summary:

Issue 1: Sustainability of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D

The assessee company challenged the addition of Rs. 28,98,519 on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D upheld by the CIT(A). The A.O observed that the assessee had raised substantial interest-bearing unsecured loans and invested in a partnership firm yielding exempt income but had not made any suo-motto disallowance of corresponding interest expenditure u/s 14A. The A.O calculated the disallowance as follows:

- Expenditure directly relating to exempt income: Rs. 26,75,556
- 1% of annual average of monthly averages of investment: Rs. 2,22,963
- Total disallowance: Rs. 28,98,519

The CIT(A upheld the A.O's decision without independent reasoning, relying on the observations of the A.O and legal precedents.

Issue 2: Validity of jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for making disallowance u/s 14A

The assessee argued that it had sufficient interest-free self-owned funds of Rs. 4.36 crore, which were more than the investment in the partnership firm, thus no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A was justified. The assessee cited several judicial pronouncements, including Pr. CIT Vs. Binani Industries Ltd. (2022), Pr. CIT Vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd. (2023), and South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021), supporting the claim that if sufficient interest-free funds are available, no disallowance u/s 14A should be made.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention but directed the A.O to verify the factual position. If the claim of sufficient self-owned funds is found in order, no disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D would be warranted.

Issue 3: Requirement of satisfaction by the A.O regarding the correctness of the claim of the assessee

The Tribunal found that the A.O failed to record dissatisfaction regarding the assessee's claim that no part of the expenditure claimed as deduction was attributable to earning exempt income. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018), which mandates that the A.O must record dissatisfaction before assuming jurisdiction for disallowance u/s 14A.

The Tribunal vacated the disallowance of Rs. 2,22,963 for administrative/other expenses u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D due to the A.O's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of recording dissatisfaction.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the A.O to verify the availability of sufficient self-owned funds and, if confirmed, to refrain from making any disallowance u/s 14A. The disallowance of administrative/other expenses was set aside due to the A.O's failure to record dissatisfaction as required by law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates