2014 (11) TMI 759 - AT - Income Tax

Confirmation of disallowance u/s 14A Decision relied overruled by subsequent decision - Held that - The AO observed that the assessee has earned dividend income - The assessee has made investment of ₹ 200 lakhs on 31.03.2007 - The assessee is engaged in trading of shares & securities and shares & securities of ₹ 17,79,181/- were held by the assessee as inventory on 31.03.2007 - The assessee has taken loan of ₹ 2,92,25,326/- on which interest of ₹ 12,20,327/- was paid - the assessee must have incurred some administrative expenses to earn tax free dividend income - some disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act is warranted - the assessee rightly argued that the decision in Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(2) (2), Mumbai Versus Daga Capital Management (P.) Ltd. 2008 (10) TMI 383 - ITAT MUMBAI has been overruled in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Since the decision was not available before the AO, therefore the issue should be restored back to the file of the AO for adjudication of the issue afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court thus, the order of the CIT(A) is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication for adjudicating the issue of disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act.

Analysis:
The only issue in the appeal was the disallowance u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 6,86,479. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee earned tax-free dividend income and had investments and loans, implying administrative expenses related to earning tax-free income. The assessee argued against direct expenditure for tax-free income but was countered with the necessity of expenses for maintaining investments. The AO invoked Rule 8D for disallowance, referring to precedents and the insertion of subsections in the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) agreed with the disallowance, emphasizing the use of borrowed funds for investments resulting in tax-free income, justifying the disallowance of interest and other expenses. The disallowance was confirmed, even though Rule 8D was deemed inapplicable for that year.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under section 14A by applying Rule 8D, despite acknowledging Rule 8D's applicability from a later assessment year. The disallowance was justified based on the proportion of borrowed funds used for investments generating tax-free income. The disallowance of interest expenses and other expenses was deemed appropriate, even without Rule 8D, considering the overall activities of the assessee. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A was confirmed.

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of a decision by the Bombay High Court that overruled a previous case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a fresh adjudication of the disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A based on the new legal precedent. The decision highlighted the importance of considering recent legal judgments in tax matters for a fair assessment.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the I.T. Act concerning tax-free income. The case delved into the necessity of expenses for maintaining investments, the applicability of Rule 8D, and the impact of legal precedents on such disallowances. The decision emphasized the need for a fresh assessment based on updated legal interpretations, ensuring a fair and accurate determination of disallowed expenditure related to exempt income.