9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 866 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D - Held that - The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) has held that when no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in earning the dividend income no notional expenditure could be deducted from the said income. The Hon ble High Court further held that when the assessee has not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend and the dividend income is incidental to the business of sale of shares, no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is to be made. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Method of valuation of closing stock of shares. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Method of Valuation of Closing Stock of Shares: The Revenue contested the method of valuation of closing stock of shares adopted by the assessee, which changed from 'at cost' to 'cost or market price, whichever is less' starting the financial year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that this change aimed to benefit from a market crash, thus rejecting the new method and valuing the stock 'at cost' as in previous years. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reversed the AO's findings, accepting the new valuation method. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing a similar case from the assessment year 2008-09, where the Tribunal had observed that the method of valuing stock at 'cost or market price, whichever is less' is universally accepted and mandated by Accounting Standards (AS-1, AS-2, AS-3). The Tribunal noted that the change was bona fide, aimed at adopting a more appropriate method, and not driven by motives to lower profits. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Chinrup Sampatram Vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC), which supports the method of valuing stock at 'cost or market price, whichever is less'. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The assessee challenged the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D concerning dividend income earned during the relevant assessment years. The AO had made disallowances for expenses related to earning tax-exempt dividend income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance. The Tribunal, however, sided with the assessee, noting that the dividend income was earned on shares held as stock-in-trade and not as investments. The Tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in CCI Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when shares are held for trading purposes and not for investment. The Tribunal also cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd., which ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made on shares held as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal concluded that since the shares were not held as investments, the dividend income was incidental to the business of trading in shares, and thus, no disallowance under Section 14A was justified. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance made under Section 14A for both assessment years. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the method of valuation of closing stock of shares and allowed the assessee's cross objections concerning the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on February 29, 2016.
|
