2019 (4) TMI 1578 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - claim restricted to the exempt income earned by the assessee - whether investment in downstream subsidiary companies is out of business expediency and therefore the provisions of section 14A of the Act could not have been invoked ? - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has raised a specific ground that the investments were made to gain control of the subsidiary companies and therefore, it is its business expediency. The assessee however, relied upon the contentions before the authorities below. Therefore, the ground No.4 on this issue is rejected. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Jasper Industries 2018 (6) TMI 1601 - ITAT HYDERABAD we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D only to the exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Assessee s appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act
2. Applicability of section 14A on investments made to gain control of subsidiary companies
3. Exempt income earned by the assessee

Analysis:

1. The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad, for the A.Y 2013-14, challenging the disallowance of &8377; 12,74,97,099 under section 14A of the Act. The assessee contended that there was no exempt dividend income from the invested companies during the relevant year, thus challenging the disallowance. The learned Counsel for the assessee later corrected the disallowance amount to &8377; 8,96,66,476 and argued that the disallowance under section 14A should be limited to the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the exempt income earned by the assessee, partly allowing the appeal.

2. The assessee claimed that the investments in downstream subsidiary companies were made for business expediency to gain control. The Tribunal noted this argument but rejected it, stating that the ground was not supported by the contentions made before the authorities below. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee earned only &8377; 2,69,773 as exempt income, which led to the decision to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the exempt income earned by the assessee, following a precedent set by a Coordinate Bench.

3. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below and cited a Supreme Court decision to argue that even if the purpose of investments was to gain control of a company, the provisions of section 14A were applicable. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the limited exempt income earned and directing the AO to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the amount of exempt income, in line with the decision of a Coordinate Bench. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed based on this analysis.

In conclusion, the ITAT Hyderabad partially allowed the assessee's appeal against the CIT (A)-4's order for the A.Y 2013-14, directing the AO to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year, based on the specific grounds raised and the applicable legal precedents.