9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 87 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - This is an admitted fact that assessee had not earned exempted income during the present year therefore following above judicial pronouncement in the case of Holcim India (P) Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT we hold that disallowance was not sustainable and therefore we dismiss ground - Decided in favour of assesse. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - The principle that follows when the sale proceeds recoveries from the debtors and internal accruals etc. are deposited by the assessee in OD/CC account and the investment in assets is made which are not put to use in business the disallowance of interest cannot be made only on the ground that the payments have been made from OD I CC account provided the internal accruals are sufficient to meet the investments made in the assets. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has made a clear finding of fact that internal accounts of the assessee represented about 30% of value of fixed assets and therefore he had allowed relief to the extent of 30% and has upheld addition to the extent of 70% of disallowance. Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned and speaking order and therefore we are in agreement with his findings - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 12,56,610 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of disallowance under Section 14A. The Revenue contended that disallowance was mandatory as the assessee had made investments in shares generating exempt income. The Revenue argued that even if no exempt income was earned, disallowance was required if investments were made. The assessee, on the other hand, claimed that no exempt income was earned during the year, citing judicial precedents. The Tribunal referred to various High Court decisions, including the case of Holcim India (P) Ltd., and held that disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable if no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii): The second ground of appeal related to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 52,193 out of a total addition of Rs. 1,73,796 made by the A.O. under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The A.O. disallowed interest paid on term loan and funds utilized from a CC account for asset acquisition. The CIT(A) partially allowed relief, holding that the interest pertaining to the term loan had to be capitalized as per the law. The CIT(A) found that internal accruals covered 30% of the asset value, hence allowing relief to that extent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the clear findings and reasoning in the order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowances under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents and factual findings to support its conclusions, emphasizing the necessity of exempt income for disallowance under Section 14A and the proper application of provisions under Section 36(1)(iii).
|
