Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 928 - AT - Income TaxCorrect head of income - treatment of interest income earned by the assessee - business income or income from other sources - Disallowance u/s 14A since assessee earned exempt dividend income - assessee is stated to be a resident corporate entity and a non-banking financial company (NBFC) -HELD THAT - We concur with Ld. AR s submissions that the assessee was registered as NBFC with RBI and would earn interest income by advancing loans. The activity of advancing loans, in such a case, would become assessee s business and naturally, the interest earned thereupon would constitute Business Income for the assessee. In fact, it is the plea of Ld. AR that such income was always offered to tax as Business Income and the said treatment was never disturbed. The rule of consistency would demand that their being no change in facts or circumstances, the accepted position should not be disturbed. Since the assessee failed to make effective representation before Ld. first appellate authority, we deem it fit to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication in the light of arguments put forth by Ld. AR before us. If the interest income has been accepted to be the Business Income in all the other years, the said treatment should not be disturbed in this year. Consequently, the assessee would be eligible to claim the deduction of business expenditure, if otherwise found in order. Since the matter of disallowance u/s 14A was not adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) in view of the fact that entire business expenditure was disallowed as well as confirmed, the same may also be re-adjudicated in the set aside proceedings. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues involved:
Treatment of interest income as income from other sources, disallowance of business expenditure, disallowance under section 14A. Analysis: 1. Treatment of interest income: The appeal contested the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding the treatment of interest income earned by the assessee. The Ld. AO assessed the interest income under the head "Income from Other Sources" instead of as Business Income, leading to disallowance of business expenses. The assessee, a registered NBFC, argued that interest income should be considered as Business Income, as consistently treated in previous and subsequent assessments. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, emphasizing the nature of the assessee's business of advancing loans, where interest income is integral to business operations. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication based on the arguments presented. 2. Disallowance of business expenditure: The Ld. AO disallowed business expenditure of a certain amount due to treating interest income as income from other sources. The assessee's claim for administrative expenditure was also rejected. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's status as an NBFC and the nature of its business, found in favor of the assessee. It directed the Ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the matter, emphasizing that if interest income was consistently treated as Business Income in previous years, the same treatment should apply for the relevant year. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of allowing business expenditure in line with the assessee's business activities. 3. Disallowance under section 14A: The issue of disallowance under section 14A arose due to the assessee earning exempt dividend income. The Ld. AO applied Rule 8D to compute disallowance, which was contested by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on this matter due to the disallowance of all business expenditure. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the disallowance under section 14A in the set-aside proceedings, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review considering the nature of the assessee's business and consistent treatment of income. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted back for re-adjudication in light of the Tribunal's observations and directions.
|