9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 285 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - AO has taken into account the shares which were held as stock in trade and on which no dividend income was earned in making disallowance - Held that - Assessee is a broker at the BSE and the NSE and is engaged in the business of share broking, investing and trading in shares and securities, mutual fund distribution, arbitrage activity on equity and derivative segment, providing financial consultancy services. In view of the decision of India Advantage Securities Limited 2012 (11) TMI 458 - ITAT, MUMBAI direct the AO to exclude the shares held as stock in trade. Strategic investments made in the sister concerns/group companies - Held that - Direct the A.O. to exclude the investments made in foreign subsidiaries and investment made in companies which are strategic in nature while computing the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in respect of administrative expenses. See Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Limited Versus DCIT 2015 (1) TMI 1289 - ITAT MUMBAI Investment made in the immovable property also does not earn any exempt income. Accordingly, direct the AO to exclude the investment in the immovable property while computing disallowance under Rule 8D.
Issues: Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) for assessment year 2011-12.
Analysis: 1. Disallowance of expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii): The primary issue in this case pertains to the disallowance of expenses amounting to ?12,48,394 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). The assessee contested this disallowance, arguing that certain investments should be excluded from the computation. The AO had considered shares held as stock in trade, strategic investments, and investment in immovable property while making the disallowance. 2. Exclusion of stock in trade from disallowance: The assessee contended that stock in trade should be excluded while computing the disallowance under Section 14A. Citing the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Advantage Securities Limited, it was argued that stock in trade should not be considered for disallowance. The Tribunal agreed with this contention and directed the AO to exclude shares held as stock in trade from the computation. 3. Treatment of strategic investments: Regarding strategic investments, the assessee argued that such investments do not require day-to-day monitoring and are inherently long term in nature. Relying on various judicial decisions, it was contended that strategic investments should be excluded from attributing administrative expenses for the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal, in line with the precedents cited, directed the AO to exclude investments made in foreign subsidiaries and strategic companies from the disallowance computation. 4. Exclusion of investment in immovable property: Lastly, the assessee asserted that investments in immovable property do not generate any exempt income and thus should be excluded from the disallowance calculation under Rule 8D. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and directed the AO to exclude the investment in immovable property amounting to ?1,45,78,820 from the computation. 5. Final decision: After considering the contentions of both parties and reviewing the orders of the authorities below, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude stock in trade, strategic investments, and investment in immovable property while computing the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) for the assessment year 2011-12. 6. Conclusion: The judgment provides clarity on the treatment of different types of investments and assets while computing disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). By referencing relevant legal precedents and considering the nature of investments, the Tribunal's decision ensures a fair and accurate determination of expenses subject to disallowance, thereby upholding the principles of tax law and judicial interpretation. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal and the rationale behind the decision rendered in the case.
|
