2014 (1) TMI 338 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The assessee has not derived any dividend income - A perusal of the income expenditure account of the assessee clearly shows that the assessee does not have any income which does not form part of the total income - It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that the investment in the shares of subsidiary company was only for the purpose of having control over the business affairs of the subsidiary company which was being maintained as subsidiary company for specific business purposes of the assessee - The assessee has also not incurred any interest expenditure attributable to the said investment in the shares - Provision of Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not apply to the assessee s case - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D for Assessment Year 2007-08.
2. Disallowance of Bad Debt and Section 14A r.w.s. 8D for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D for Assessment Year 2007-08:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of Rs.46,07,000 made under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D. The Revenue argued that the assessee should prove that no interest-bearing fund was used for investments. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not derive any dividend income and did not have any income outside the total income. The Tribunal found that Section 14A read with Rule 8D did not apply to the assessee's case as there was no interest expenditure attributable to the investments. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Bad Debt and Section 14A r.w.s. 8D for Assessment Year 2009-10:
For this assessment year, the Revenue raised grounds regarding the deletion of bad debt and disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of bad debt based on the decision of the Supreme Court in TRF Limited vs. CIT. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D, it was found that the issue was identical to the previous year's case. The Tribunal confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A was necessary, and the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue for both issues.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) in both cases, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowances under Section 14A r.w.s. 8D and the deletion of bad debt. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Revenue to establish the applicability of Section 14A and Rule 8D in cases involving disallowances related to investments. The judgments were pronounced on 17.12.2013.