9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 700 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - sufficient funds were available with the assessee, which were much more than the investments made during the year - addition deleted by the CIT(A) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has rightly held that from the investment records it can be seen that all the investments mentioned in Schedule F do not yield exempt income. Thus, the CIT(A) properly held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) is restricted to only 5% of average investment income from which, is exempt irrespective of where the said exempt income was received during A.Y. 2011- 12 or not. There is no need to interfere with the finding of CIT(A). Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Addition under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) - HELD THAT - The provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D provide for disallowance of expenses which are incurred only in relation to the exempt income earned. It is a settled law that while computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(iii), the rate of 0.5% has to be applied to only those investments which actually have resulted in exempt dividend income, rather than 0.5% of the average of total investments. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT 2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT - the amount of disallowance under clause (iii) should be restricted to 0.5% of Avg. Investments. Addition on account of interest paid on customer s deposits - HELD THAT - Since this issue is already decided in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 and facts in the present Assessment Year is identical as held assessee submitted that it is under reconciliation. Further when the character of deposit is determined, looking to the nature of operation geographically as well as large subscriber s base , it is not correct to hold that pending reconciliation the deposit become income of the assesse. In view of this we set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to give proper opportunity to the assessee to provide reconciliation of the same and then if the amounts are not at all identifiable with respect to the customers then to that extent addition may be restricted. However, if this amount is identifiable with the subscriber and even if it is not claimed by the subscriber despite disconnection of the services assessee is under obligation to repay whenever demanded by the customer. Therefore, Id Assessing Officer is directed to grant an opportunity to the assessee for reconciliation of the above deposit Addition account of prior period income - net off prior period income and prior period expenditure - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Profit and Loss account of the assessee company shows that the company has neither taken the prior-period income in its taxable profit, nor has considered the prior period expenses, i.e. the prior period adjustments have been made by the assessee company on below the line profit. The disallowance of prior period expense has to be computed by netting off the prior period income against the prior period expenditure. Thus, the case laws referred by the Ld. AR are apt in the present case. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) ignored these factual and legal aspects and were not correct in making the entire addition without netting off. We, therefore, remand back this issue with the direction to the Assessing Officer to net off prior period income and prior period expenditure and only tax the net income accordingly - Assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 2. Disallowance of interest on customer’s deposit account. 3. Addition on account of prior period income. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The primary issue concerns the disallowance of ?9,69,57,875/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of average investment income amounting to ?1,33,74,000/-. - Argument by Revenue: The CIT(A) erred in limiting the disallowance to 0.5% of average investment income instead of the full amount disallowed by the AO. - Argument by Assessee: The assessee contended that no administrative expenses were incurred in connection with the investments made. The assessee had sufficient own funds to make the investments, which was acknowledged by the CIT(A). - Tribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of average investment income. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) rightly considered that not all investments yielded exempt income and thus, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be limited to 0.5% of the average investments that generated exempt income. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal and Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal were dismissed. 2. Disallowance of interest on customer’s deposit account: The AO made an addition of ?47,00,872/- on account of interest paid on customer’s deposits. The CIT(A) allowed partial relief, reducing the disallowance to ?5,17,566/-. - Argument by Revenue: The CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to ?5,17,566/-. - Argument by Assessee: The issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in previous years (A.Y. 2006-07, 2008-09, and 2009-10) by the Tribunal, which held that the deposits were custodial in nature and the interest thereon should not be disallowed. - Tribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal reiterated its earlier stance, confirming that the deposits were custodial and the interest should not be disallowed. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, and Ground No. 3 of the Assessee’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to allow reconciliation of the deposits. 3. Addition on account of prior period income: The AO added ?3,36,80,000/- to the assessee’s income on account of prior period income without allowing the adjustment of prior period expenses amounting to ?1,80,10,000/-. - Argument by Assessee: The assessee argued that prior period income should be netted off against prior period expenses, citing several judicial precedents supporting this view. - Tribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the disallowance should be computed by netting off prior period income against prior period expenses. The issue was remanded back to the AO to recompute the taxable income by netting off the prior period income and expenses. Ground No. 4 of the Assessee’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D and directed the AO to reconsider the disallowance of interest on customer’s deposits and the addition on account of prior period income by allowing appropriate reconciliations and netting off.
|
