2016 (10) TMI 698 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is doing business of trading in shares and the shares at the end of the year are shown as stock-in-trade and the income from trading of shares has been shown as business income by the assessee. We find that the ld.CIT(A), after relying on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , has noted that where the dividend income was incidental to the business of sales of shares, no disallowance u/s.14A could be made. We further find that Coordinate Bench in the case of Anjalee Exim Private Limited vs. ACIT 2015 (11) TMI 110 - ITAT AHMEDABAD has similarly held that Rule 8D will have no application when the shares are held as stock-in-trade - Decide in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The issue revolved around the disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, an individual deriving income from various sources, had not disallowed proportionate expenditure incurred for earning exempted income as required by law. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses amounting to &8377; 75,10,403 under section 14A. However, the ld.CIT(A) decided in favor of the assessee, stating that the disallowance was not warranted as the dividend income was incidental to the business of trading in shares. The ld.CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and the decision of the ITAT Pune Bench in similar cases.

The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), appealed before the ITAT. The ITAT noted that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in shares, and the shares were treated as stock-in-trade. Referring to relevant case law, the ITAT held that when dividend income is incidental to the business of selling shares, no disallowance u/s.14A should be made. The ITAT also cited a Coordinate Bench decision to support its findings, emphasizing that Rule 8D would not apply when shares are held as stock-in-trade.

During the proceedings, the Revenue did not challenge the findings of the ld.CIT(A) or present any contradictory binding decision. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the ld.CIT(A) and allowing relief to the assessee. The ITAT's decision was based on the principle that when computation provisions fail, disallowance cannot be made, as established by legal precedents.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the order of the ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that no disallowance u/s.14A should be made when dividend income is incidental to the business of trading in shares held as stock-in-trade. The decision was in line with established legal principles and relevant case law, ultimately providing relief to the assessee in this matter.