2019 (4) TMI 512 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - interest free funds available with the assessee is more than investment in tax free securities - HELD THAT - In the case of CIT and Another Vs. Microlabs Ltd. 2016 (4) TMI 219 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we examine the amount of interest free funds available with the assessee and compare it with investment in tax free securities. We find that assessee was having interest free own funds in the form of share capital and reserves and surplus. In addition to that, the assessee is also having fund in the form of CCDs on which no interest is being paid by the assessee. If we add up these two amounts, it is seen that total interest free funds available with the assessee is of as against the investment in tax free securities of ₹ 51,76,46,752/-. Hence interest free funds available with the assessee is more than investment in tax free securities. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of average investment - there is no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) in that regard because learned AR of the assessee has also fairly conceded in that regard. This disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of IT Rules, 1962 being 0.5% of average investment is upheld and accordingly, ground no. 2(c) is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of expenses under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules
- Disallowance of ROC fees
- Disallowance of legal fees
- Applicability of judgments on interest expenditure disallowance

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules:
- The appeals were directed against orders of the ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 regarding disallowances made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules.
- The appellant challenged the disallowance of expenses related to administrative and interest expenditures on the grounds of lack of direct nexus between expenditure and dividend income.
- The appellant argued that sufficient interest-free funds were available, citing judgments supporting the position that no disallowance should be made if non-interest bearing funds exceed investments in tax-free securities.
- The Tribunal analyzed the available funds vis-a-vis investments and applied relevant judgments to conclude that disallowance of interest expenditure was not warranted.
- The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part by deleting the disallowance of interest expenses but upheld the disallowance of administrative expenses based on the concession made by the appellant.

2. Disallowance of ROC Fees and Legal Fees:
- The appellant contested the disallowance of ROC fees and legal fees, arguing that these expenses were revenue expenditures and should be allowed.
- However, the Tribunal rejected these grounds as not pressed, indicating that the appellant did not pursue these arguments during the proceedings.

3. Applicability of Judgments on Interest Expenditure Disallowance:
- The Tribunal referred to judgments by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble apex court to support its decision on the disallowance of interest expenditure.
- By applying the principles established in these judgments, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the disallowance of interest expenses under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules.

4. Final Decision:
- The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 by deleting the disallowance of interest expenses but upheld the disallowance of administrative expenses.
- The appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 was dismissed as the appellant did not press the appeal for this year.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by the appellant, the Tribunal's reasoning based on relevant judgments, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal for each issue involved.