9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1592 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that - We delete the addition 1, 71, 253/- under Rule 8D (2) (ii) as there is no interest expenses debited in the profit and loss account. After setting off interest expense with interest income the resulted amount of 52, 54, 469/- comes as a net interest income which can not be disallowed under Rule 8D (2) (ii) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore we note that there is no interest expenditure in the assessee s case under consideration interest received is more than the interest paid and the net result is interest income therefore no disallowance should be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules. For addition of 1, 90, 049/- under Rule 8D (2) (iii) of the Income Tax Rules 1962 we direct the assessing officer to compute the disallowance @0.5% only taking into account the investments which yield dividend income during the previous year as per the discussion made in the case of REI Agro Ltd. (2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT KOLKATA). TDS credit disallowance on mobilization advance and not entire contract receipts were received in the relevant Assessment Year - Held that - We direct the assessing officer to examine the income offered the tune of 6, 00, 000/- in the Assessment Year under consideration and allow the TDS credit proportionately to the amount of 6, 00, 000/- and balance TDS credit on the remaining sum of 20, 48, 000/- (that is 26, 48, 000 6, 00, 000) should be allowed in subsequent years in accordance with law. Hence we allow this ground of the assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 2. Non-allowance of TDS credit on mobilization advance. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The primary grievance of the assessee pertains to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under Section 14A read with Rule 8D amounting to ?3,61,302/-. The assessee argued that after netting off the interest paid and received, the resultant amount is net interest income, thus no disallowance is warranted under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed by considering only dividend-bearing securities. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee claimed exempt dividend income of ?5,91,832/- and ?22,52,923/- under Sections 10(34) and 10(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite having exempt income, the assessee did not compute any disallowance under Section 14A. The AO computed the disallowance as per Rule 8D, which included ?1,71,253/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and ?1,90,049/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition. The assessee contended that no disallowance should be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the net result after setting off interest paid and received was interest income. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had net interest income of ?52,54,469/- after setting off interest expenses with interest income. Therefore, no disallowance can be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as there was no net interest expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the case of DCIT vs. M.S. Trade Apartment Ltd., where it was held that no part of interest debited can be disallowed if there is no net interest expenditure. Regarding the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Tribunal held that only those investments which yielded dividend income during the relevant assessment year should be considered. This view was supported by the case of REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute the disallowance by considering only the investments that yielded dividend income during the previous year. 2. Non-allowance of TDS credit on mobilization advance: The second issue raised by the assessee was the non-allowance of TDS credit of ?60,004/- on mobilization advance. The AO observed that the assessee claimed TDS credit for receipts accounted as advances and not as income. The AO denied the TDS credit as per Section 199 of the Act, which states that credit for TDS can only be given if the corresponding income is offered to tax. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's decision. The assessee argued that the mobilization advance of ?26,48,000/- was received, and out of this, ?6,00,000/- was offered to tax. Therefore, proportionate TDS credit should be allowed. The Tribunal noted that as per Section 199, TDS credit should be given when the income is offered to tax. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 5/2001, which allows proportionate TDS credit for advance rent spread over multiple years. Applying this principle, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow proportionate TDS credit for the amount of ?6,00,000/- offered to tax and the balance TDS credit in subsequent years. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. For the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal deleted the addition under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) considering only the dividend-yielding investments. For the TDS credit issue, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow proportionate TDS credit for the amount offered to tax and the balance in subsequent years.
|
