2019 (2) TMI 985 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules - AR argued that the investments made by the assessee in subsidiary company are to be considered as strategic investment and hence the same should be kept outside the ambit of computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D of the Rules - Held that - We find this aspect has been settled recently in the case of Maxopp Investments against the assessee 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . However, at the outset, we find that the assessee had earned exempt income in the form of dividend only to the extent of ₹ 674.40/-. Hence the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be restricted only to the extent of dividend income. AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to ₹ 674/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, ground no. 1(b) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. TDS u/s 194H - Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) in respect of credit card swiping charges paid to the bank treating the same as commission - Held that - The monies paid by the assessee to the bank are nothing in the form of bank charges and similar to bank rendering services to the assessee for opening letters of credit, bill discounting, issuing DDs etc.. Merely because the bank collects the money from customer for providing credit card services and retains its charges and passes on net amount to the assessee, it cannot automatically fall within the ambit of the term commission within the meaning of section 194H of the Act. AR has informed that the similar disallowance made in assessment year 2010-11 in assessee s own case was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) against which the revenue did not prefer any appeal before this Tribunal. He also argued that no such disallowance was made by the AO in subsequent years. These facts are not controverted by the revenue before us. Hence we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made u/s 40a(ia). Addition on account of interest income as per ITS details - Held that - AR having reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities prayed before us that let this matter be examined by the ld. AO as to whether any refund at all was granted to the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 on 24.02.2011 or adjusted against any other demands thereon. The ld. DR fairly agreed to these proposals. Accordingly, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play, to remand this issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication as per law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard in this regard. The ld. AO is also directed to dispose off with cogent evidences , the objections, if any, filed by the assessee in this regard. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of interest income as per ITS details.
4. Disallowance for non-deposit of ESI and PF.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal arose from the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the disallowance of a specific amount under section 14A. The Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D to make the disallowance, which the appellant contested. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the actual exempt income earned by the appellant, citing a High Court decision. Consequently, the ground raised by the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

2. Disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act:
The issue pertained to the disallowance of a specific amount under section 40a(ia) concerning credit card swiping charges paid to a bank. The appellant argued that the payments were not commission but regular bank charges for services provided. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that similar disallowance in a previous year was deleted, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance for the current year. Therefore, the ground raised by the appellant was allowed.

3. Addition of interest income as per ITS details:
The appellant contested the addition of interest income related to an IT refund, claiming that no such refund was received. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for further examination to determine if any refund was granted and whether it was adjusted against demands. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to present evidence. Consequently, the ground raised by the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

4. Disallowance for non-deposit of ESI and PF:
The appellant did not press this ground before the Tribunal, and no arguments were presented. As a result, the ground raised by the appellant was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the appellant for statistical purposes, addressing various issues related to disallowances and additions under the Income Tax Act.