9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 960 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s. 14A r.w. r. 8D - Held that - Audit fees and legal 9, 45, 104.00 is as inadmissible under section 14A relating to dividend income which would be eligible for addition while computing the book profit under section 115JB - Held that - The apportionment of the expenses between the dividend income and the long term capital gain becomes relevant while determining the profit under section 115JB of the Act. Therefore we are inclined to reverse the order of Authorities Below. Case of M/s Maxopp Investment Limited (2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) followed - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: The first issue raised by the assessee concerns the disallowance of ?1,46,78,485/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee, a Non-Finance Company engaged in investment activities, earned dividend income of ?74,10,551/- and Long Term Capital Gain of ?4,51,20,300/-, both claimed as exempt under Sections 10(34) and 10(38) of the Act, respectively. The assessee initially disallowed ?66,99,516/- of expenses related to the exempt income. However, the AO was dissatisfied and invoked Rule 8D, making disallowances totaling ?1,52,22,385/-, later limited to ?1,46,78,485/- after considering the total expenses claimed in the profit & loss account. The AO disallowed the remaining ?7,78,969/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's disallowance but directed verification of the depreciation expense of ?84,333/- to exclude it if found correct. The assessee contended that the AO's disallowance exceeded the actual administrative expenses of ?1,72,372/-, which included audit fees and legal & professional charges. The Tribunal noted that the actual expenses claimed by the assessee were much less than those disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It held that disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot exceed the actual expenses incurred, directing the AO to delete the impugned addition. 2. Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The second issue pertains to the addition of ?1,46,78,485/- under Section 14A while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The assessee argued that only ?9,45,104/- related to dividend income should be added, as the remaining expenses of ?57,54,412/- pertained to Long Term Capital Gain, which should not be added per the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB. The AO added the entire amount of ?1,46,78,485/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the method for computing book profit under Section 115JB is a self-contained code and does not allow for deductions beyond those specified in the explanation to Section 115JB. The CIT(A) found no infirmity in the AO's computation. The Tribunal, however, noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT had clarified that the principle of apportionment of expenses is relevant for Section 14A. The Tribunal held that the expenses disallowed under Section 14A should be apportioned between dividend income and Long Term Capital Gain while computing book profit under Section 115JB. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the order of the lower authorities and allowed the assessee's ground of appeal. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) exceeding the actual expenses and reversing the addition of expenses related to Long Term Capital Gain while computing book profit under Section 115JB.
|
