9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 60 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - As per CIT-A investments that has yielded the exempted income alone is to be considered for the purpose of calculating the disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) - contention of the assessee even before authorities below that the interest bearing borrowings were utilized for business purposes and not for making investments - HELD THAT - The authorities below have not given any finding to contradict/rebut this plea of the assessee. In any case, the assessee s own interest free funds which were deployed by the assessee in business ( share capital-losses) are much higher than average investment held by assessee during the year under consideration. Thus, additions as were made by AO which was later sustained by learned CIT(A) by disallowing interest expenditure invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the 1962 Rules is not sustainable in the eyes of law which we order deletion. Our decision is supported by decision of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited . 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD 2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT HDFC BANK LTD. 2016 (3) TMI 755 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Issue 1: Disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The appeal was against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appellant contended that the order was contrary to law and probabilities of the case. The dispute revolved around the disallowance of expenditure under Rule 8D(iii) and Rule 8D(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had considered only investments yielding exempt income for disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) but not under Rule 8D(ii). The appellant argued that no specific interest expenditure was incurred for earning the dividend income. The appellant also claimed that only the net interest expense should be considered if Rule 8D(ii) was to be invoked. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Issue 2: Disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962: The primary contention of the appellant was the disallowance of interest expenditure to the tune of ?10,30,698/- by invoking Section 14A of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules. The appellant argued that only investments yielding exempt income during the relevant year should be considered for disallowance. The appellant highlighted that the investments yielding dividend income were only with BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Private Limited. The appellant sold all its investments during the year under consideration, and the balance was nil at the year-end. It was emphasized that no part of the interest-bearing borrowings was used for investments, and only interest-free owned funds were utilized. The Tribunal observed that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not sustainable. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the disallowance, citing various legal precedents supporting their decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12, emphasizing the incorrectness of the disallowances made under Rule 8D(iii) and Rule 8D(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and the unsustainability of the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules.
|
