2015 (6) TMI 412 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under section 14A - Held that - The straightway application of rule 8D in the case of the assessee by the lower authorities is not sustainable. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the expenses equal to 4 per cent. of the exempt income earned by the assessee would constitute reasonable disallowance and the same is restricted to that extent accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Addition of amount to the closing stock - there is no tax implication even if the inclusive method prescribed in section 145A of the Act is followed as contested by assessee - Held that - The assessee has not furnished working to show that the net profit remained the same under both the inclusive method and the exclusive method . Since the assessee has followed the guidance note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, it would be in a position to demonstrate the abovesaid fact before the Assessing Officer, i.e., the assessee could establish that there was no change in the income under both methods by furnishing necessary workings. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to demonstrate this fact. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act.
2. Addition of amount to the closing stock under section 145A of the Act.
3. Incorrect calculation of total income from business.
4. Discrepancy in tax credit granted.
5. Interest charged under sections 234C and 234D.

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act:
The Assessing Officer made disallowances under section 14A due to the assessee earning exempt income, applying rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. The Dispute Resolution Panel directed the computation as per rule 8D. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws to determine that rule 8D applies if the assessee's method is unsatisfactory. As there were no direct or indirect expenses incurred, a reasonable disallowance of 4% of exempt income was deemed appropriate, partially allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of amount to the closing stock under section 145A of the Act:
The Assessing Officer added amounts to closing stock due to cenvat and service tax credits. The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the decision not to add unutilized service tax to the opening stock. The Tribunal noted past decisions favoring the assessee on similar issues. However, discrepancies were found in the Panel's approach, leading to a decision to give the assessee another opportunity to demonstrate the tax implications and adjust the opening stock accordingly. The Panel's order was set aside for a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 3: Incorrect calculation of total income from business:
The Assessing Officer incorrectly calculated the total income from business, leading to a casting error. The Tribunal did not provide specific details on the resolution of this issue.

Issue 4: Discrepancy in tax credit granted:
The Assessing Officer granted a lower tax credit compared to the amount claimed in the return of income. The Tribunal did not elaborate on the resolution of this issue in the summary provided.

Issue 5: Interest charged under sections 234C and 234D:
The Assessing Officer charged interest under sections 234C and 234D, differing from the amounts payable as per the return of income. The Tribunal did not specify the outcome of this issue in the summarized judgment.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI.