2013 (5) TMI 17 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that - As from profit and loss account of assessee it can be farly concluded that total expenses incurred by assessee other than interest were Rs.9,16,546/- out of which assessee had already made a disallowance of Rs.7,42,023/- which is quite reasonable, keeping in view the other taxable income of the assessee. The calculation made by AO gives absurd results which cannot be the intention of the legislature. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule, 1962 for disallowance calculation.
3. Dispute regarding the computation of disallowance as per Rule 8D (2)(iii).
4. Interpretation of the term "expenditure" under Rule 8D.

Analysis:

1. The appeal pertained to the disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) calculated the disallowance using Rule 8D, resulting in an addition of Rs. 52,00,515/- due to a discrepancy in the calculation method employed by the assessee and the AO.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, citing the applicability of Rule 8D from the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT (A) emphasized the three circumstances under which disallowance is mandated under Rule 8D, including the proportionate disallowance of interest not directly attributable to any income. The CIT (A) concluded that the disallowance made by the AO was in accordance with the law.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and observed that the assessee had already made a reasonable disallowance of Rs. 7,42,023/- out of total expenses of Rs. 9,16,546/-. The Tribunal noted that the AO's calculation resulted in absurd outcomes, contrary to legislative intent. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses cannot exceed the total expenses incurred by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the AO's addition unreasonable and deleted the same.

4. The interpretation of the term "expenditure" under Rule 8D was crucial in determining the disallowance amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "expenditure" should not be limited to administrative expenses only, as argued by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of aligning disallowance calculations with legislative intent and ensuring reasonableness in the application of tax rules.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the need for a balanced and reasonable approach in determining disallowances under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 8D.