2019 (4) TMI 411 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - application of matching concept - no exempt income received during the previous year - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee s own case 2017 (5) TMI 1409 - ITAT CHENNAI the exemption extended to dividend income would relate only to the previous year when the income was earned and none other and consequently the expenditure incurred in connection therewith should also be dealt with in the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income. See M/s. Redington (India) Ltd. Versus ACIT 2017 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal condonation
2. Disallowance of brand license fee
3. Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeal condonation:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, for the assessment year 2014-15, seeking condonation for a two-day delay in filing the appeal. After hearing both parties, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.

2. Disallowance of brand license fee:
The assessee, engaged in property development, had brand license fee disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2014-15. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on a Tribunal decision from a previous year. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the brand license fee should not be treated as revenue expenditure due to the enduring benefit received. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing a previous order confirming that the payment for using the logo was in the revenue field.

3. Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D:
The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue contested this disallowance, arguing that even without dividend income, the expenditure should be computed under Rule 8D(2). However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee, relying on a judgment of the Madras High Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that in a year without exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure related to assumed income.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following previous orders and judgments, and confirming the decisions of the lower authorities.