2024 (12) TMI 1328 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Assessee had mixed pool funds and the available funds, which were more than the investments made in mutual funds - HELD THAT - As no dispute regarding the fact that the Assessee had mixed pool funds and the available funds were more than investments made in the mutual funds and the investment made out of mixed pool funds with the presumption that it had been made out the tax funds available, by following the ratio laid down in South India Bank 2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT and Reliance Industries Ltd. 2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has committed error in sustaining the addition u/s 14A of the Act by incorrectly applying Rule 8D of the IT Rules - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1) (iii) - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the claim of the Assessee have been accepted by the Department right from Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2012- 13, no disallowances have been made by the A.O. which can be corroborated by the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2012-13 which were passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. By following the Rule of consistency as reiterated in the case of M/s Excel Industries Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT and M/s Radhasoami Satsang 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT and finding merit in the contention of the Ld. Assessee's Representative, disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 36(1) (iii) deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance under the head of repair and Maintenance - HELD THAT - By respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2012-13 in Assessee s own case 2019 (10) TMI 1600 - ITAT DELHI and considering the nature of the business of the Assessee which involve preservation and maintenance of already existing assets and also considering the fact that such expenditures have been allowed for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2001-02 and 1997-98, we find no reason to sustain the disallowance made by the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance under the head of repair and maintenance expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The primary issue under Section 14A involves the disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income. The Assessee challenged the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Revenue also contested the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had mixed pool funds, with available funds exceeding the investments made in mutual funds. The investments were presumed to be made out of tax-free funds. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in South Indian Bank Vs. CIT, which emphasized that no nexus was established between the expenditure disallowed and the earning of exempt income. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance under Section 14A by incorrectly applying Rule 8D. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeals for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) pertains to the interest paid on borrowed funds, which the A.O. disallowed, and the CIT(A) confirmed for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The Assessee argued that advances made to certain entities were for business purposes and had been accepted in previous assessment years without disallowance.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessee's claims were accepted by the Department from Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2012-13, with no disallowances made by the A.O. Following the principle of consistency as upheld by the Supreme Court in M/s Excel Industries Ltd. and M/s Radhasoami Satsang, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeals for the relevant assessment years and deleted the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(iii).

3. Disallowance under the head of repair and maintenance expenses:

The Assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 6,48,690/- under repair and maintenance expenses for the Assessment Year 2015-16, while the Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 6,11,552/- by the CIT(A) under the same head.

The Tribunal noted that the expenses related to the replacement of corroded pipelines, with no new asset being created. The Tribunal referred to its previous orders for earlier assessment years, where similar expenditures were allowed as revenue expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in sustaining the disallowance by the CIT(A) and allowed the Assessee's appeal while dismissing the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeals for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 10th December 2024.

← Previous Next →