2015 (7) TMI 870 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under Section 14A - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that for the year under consideration the method prescribed under Rule 8D for working the disallowance u/s. 14A would not be applicable in view of the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein held that the method prescribed under Rule 8D would be applicable to A.Y. 08-09 and subsequent assessment years. We further find that the coordinate Bench of Tribunal in Assessee s own case for A.Y. 06-07 had held that Rule 8D is applicable only with effect from A.Y. 08-09 and therefore disallowance u/s. 14A cannot be made as per the formula given in Rule 8D. With respect to working out the disallowance whereby A.O considered the entire depreciation, we find that ld. CIT(A) has noted that depreciation for factory building and other direct equipments and machines are not related to investments and earning of exempt income and therefore the depreciation cannot be considered for making proportionate disallowance. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate as to how the aforesaid finding of ld. CIT(A) is wrong. We further find that the Assessee had suo motu worked out the disallowance u/s. 14A at ₹ 16,30,762/- and in the aforesaid working of Assessee also no mistake has been pointed out by the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of employees contribution to ESIC - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that - In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the employees contribution of ESIC was paid after the due date prescribed under ESI Act. We find that the issue of delayed payment of ESIC contribution has now decided in favour of the Revenue by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of GSRTC 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Thus in the absence of any contrary binding decision brought on record by ld. A.R, we are of the view that A.O was justified in treating the delayed deposit of Employees contribution of ESIC as income of the Assessee and accordingly uphold the order of A.O on this ground. - Decided against assessee. Addition by income from investment in Free Trade Zone - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - CIT(A) while deleting the addition has followed the decision of Tribunal for A.Y. 06-07 in Assessee s own case. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case for the year under consideration as compared to that of A.Y. 06-07 which was relied by ld. CIT(A) nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal for A.Y. 06-07 in Assessee s own case has been overturned by Hon ble High Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, we therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC.
3. Addition of income from investments in Free Zone Entity in Ajman Free Zone.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A:
- Facts and Arguments: The Assessee earned dividend income exempt from tax and had significant investments but did not disallow any amount under Section 14A. The Assessee argued that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules was not applicable for the year under consideration (A.Y. 2007-08) and that no borrowed funds were used for investments.
- Assessment Officer (A.O.)'s Decision: The A.O. disallowed Rs. 84,35,716 based on Rule 8D, arguing that the Assessee did not maintain separate accounts for exempt income and used a proration method.
- CIT(A)'s Decision: CIT(A) partially agreed with the Assessee, noting that Rule 8D was not applicable for A.Y. 2007-08. CIT(A) confirmed a disallowance of Rs. 16,30,762 for indirect expenses and Rs. 14,65,232 for interest, totaling Rs. 30,95,994.
- Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable for A.Y. 2007-08, and the disallowance should be reasonable. It directed the deletion of any disallowance exceeding the Assessee's own calculation of Rs. 16,30,762, thus allowing the Assessee's appeal.

2. Disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC:
- Facts and Arguments: The A.O. noticed delayed deposits of employees' ESIC contributions totaling Rs. 36,313 and treated them as income, arguing they should be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) if not paid within the prescribed due date.
- CIT(A)'s Decision: CIT(A) allowed the Assessee's claim, stating that if the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return, they should be allowed, referencing several ITAT decisions.
- Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the A.O.'s decision, citing the Gujarat High Court's ruling in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, which held that delayed payments of employees' contributions are not allowable.

3. Addition of income from investments in Free Zone Entity in Ajman Free Zone:
- Facts and Arguments: The A.O. added Rs. 21,24,75,000 as income from Vega Industries (Middle East) FZE, considering it a proprietary concern of the Assessee.
- CIT(A)'s Decision: CIT(A) deleted the addition, following the Tribunal's decision in the Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07, which held that Vega Industries was an independent entity.
- Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not demonstrate any difference in facts for the current year compared to A.Y. 2006-07, nor did it show that the earlier Tribunal decision was overturned.

Conclusion:
- Assessee's Appeal: Allowed, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 16,30,762.
- Revenue's Appeal: Partly allowed, upholding the disallowance of delayed ESIC contributions but dismissing the addition of income from the Free Zone Entity.