2018 (10) TMI 850 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A in computation of book profit u/s 115JB - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT 2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT which held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account except to the extent provided in Explanation to Section 115J. We hold that adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A was not required to be made in Book Profits for the purpose of Section 115JB. Revenue s appeal stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance u/s 14A to book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on previous Tribunal decisions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance u/s 14A:
The appeal by the revenue contested the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of an amount over and above the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee. The Ld. AO applied Rule 8D to work out the disallowance, which was higher than the assessee's computation. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additional disallowance based on the Tribunal's decision for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication in light of statutory provisions and recent judgments, directing the assessee to substantiate the claim with supporting evidence.

Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 14A to book profit u/s 115JB:
The matter regarding the adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB favored the assessee based on the judgment of the Delhi Tribunal (Special Bench) in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal held that adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A was not required to be made in Book Profits for the purpose of Section 115JB, following a series of judgments in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Disallowance u/s 14A based on previous Tribunal decisions:
The Tribunal considered previous Tribunal decisions for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 where the rate of disallowance was determined based on average investments. However, for the impugned AY, the Tribunal found that the rate of 0.22% of average investment could not be accepted. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication in line with statutory provisions and recent judgments.

In conclusion, the revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the cross-objection was dismissed. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning for each issue, considering statutory provisions, previous Tribunal decisions, and recent judgments to arrive at its decision.