9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 392 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance of the interest expenses under section 14A read with rule 8D - assessee suo motu disallowed the amount - ITAT delted the disallowance - Held that - So far as the contention on behalf of the appellant with respect to the applicability of rule 8D of the Rules with effect from March 31, 2006, is concerned, there cannot be any dispute about the same. How ever, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer made the dis allowance under section 14A of the Act solely on the ground that the assessee failed to justify that the investment was made out of the interest- free funds. However, both the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal have found otherwise. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue would not be of any assistance to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, we confirm the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in so far as deleting the disallowance of interest expenses under section 14A of the Act in its entirety.- Decided against revenue. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of the TDS on over seas freight - ITAT deleted the disallowance - Held that - As per section 172 of the Act, payment made to the non-resident shipping company would not be covered in section 194C or section 194 of the Act. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the amount in question was in fact paid to the non-resident shipping company. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of interest expenses under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 2. Deletion of disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on overseas freight. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Disallowance of Interest Expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 12,06,934 under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee could not justify that the investments made in shares and mutual funds amounting to Rs. 21,14,07,850 were from interest-free funds. The AO observed that the assessee paid interest expenses of Rs. 40,10,861 and disallowed Rs. 14,06,934, restricting the effective disallowance to Rs. 12,06,934 after considering the assessee's suo motu disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] partly allowed the appeal, deleting Rs. 5,84,706 out of the disallowance of Rs. 12,06,934, but confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 6,22,228 for administrative and calculation charges. Both the assessee and the Revenue appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 12,06,934, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The High Court agreed with the ITAT's findings, noting that both the CIT(A) and ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to make the investments. The court referred to the ITAT's observations: "The assessee had borrowed funds for specific purposes (vehicle and captive power plant), and no borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee earned interest income from associated concerns and held that the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified." The court also noted the ITAT's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd., which supported the assessee's computation of disallowance. The High Court confirmed the ITAT's judgment, stating that the AO's disallowance under section 14A was based on the incorrect assumption that the investments were not made from interest-free funds. The court also dismissed the Revenue's reliance on the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, as it was not applicable to the facts of the case. 2. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Overseas Freight:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,02,43,720 under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on overseas freight. The CIT(A) deleted the entire disallowance, and the ITAT confirmed this deletion. The High Court noted that as per section 172 of the Act, payments made to non-resident shipping companies are not covered under sections 194C or 194 of the Act. It was undisputed that the amount was paid to a non-resident shipping company. The court agreed with the ITAT's decision, stating that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified as the provisions of section 172 applied, and the non-resident shipping company was not required to file a return under section 172. Conclusion:The High Court found no error in the ITAT's judgment and dismissed both tax appeals, confirming the deletion of disallowances under sections 14A and 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act.
|
