2014 (2) TMI 570 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made u/s 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of the Act - Held that - Assessee contended that the intent was not to earn any exempt income - Investment made in four joint venture companies were with the intention to expend the business of the assessee out of the commercial expediency and not with the intention of exempted income - The earning of exempted income by way of dividend income is only incidental of expanding its business - From making this investment, the assessee is able to enhance its sale substantially thus, the CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition which was over and above the computation made by the assessee for disallowance as per Rule 8D Decided in favour fo Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against the deletion of addition made by the AO.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 30,15,375/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, a pharmaceutical products manufacturing and trading company, had made investments resulting in exempt income. The AO applied Rule 8D for disallowance, which the appellant initially computed at Rs. 33,52,297/-. The appellant later revised the disallowance to Rs. 1,45 crores, excluding investments in certain companies. However, the AO added the difference to the appellant's income, leading to the dispute. The CIT (A) upheld the addition, emphasizing the applicability of section 14A and Rule 8D, despite the appellant's argument that the investments were for business expansion, not to earn exempt income.

The CIT (A) reasoned that the provisions of section 14A mandate disallowance where expenditure is related to earning exempt income. The appellant's argument that investments were for business expansion and not specifically for earning exempt income was countered by the CIT (A) by emphasizing the plain reading of section 14A and Rule 8D. The CIT (A) held that the legislation did not exclude investments in joint venture companies from disallowance calculation, especially considering the dividend income received from one of the joint venture companies during the relevant year.

The appellant relied on various judicial precedents to support their case, including decisions from ITAT Delhi Bench and High Courts. The appellant argued that the investments in joint venture companies were made for business expansion, not for earning exempt income directly. The appellant highlighted that the investments led to a substantial increase in sales, emphasizing the commercial expediency behind the investments. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering both sides and the factual position, concluded that the investments were made for business expansion purposes, and the earning of exempt income was incidental. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' decision to sustain the addition, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the lower authorities to sustain the addition of Rs. 30,15,375/-, as it was deemed unjustified based on the intention behind the investments made by the appellant for business expansion.