9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 436 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - Addition of interest - HELD THAT - We respectfully follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 by following the ratio of the decisions of the in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Limited 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and HDFC Bank Limited 2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Addition on account of common administrative expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) - Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Limited 2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it was held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year. Respectfully following these judicial pronouncements cited on behalf of the assessee as well as relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) restricting the disallowance made on account of the common administrative expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) being the exempt dividend income actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Determination of whether investments were made using borrowed funds or own funds. 3. Application of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii) for calculating disallowance. 4. Limitation of disallowance to the amount of exempt income earned. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] who had restricted the disallowance of ?10,72,47,695/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to ?4,31,280/-, which was the actual dividend income earned by the assessee during the year. The AO had applied Rule 8D to compute the disallowance, considering the total investments and interest expenses. 2. Determination of Investment Source: The assessee contended that no expenditure was incurred in earning the exempt income and cited judicial precedents to support that disallowance under Section 14A requires a proximate cause between the expenditure and the exempt income. The AO, however, did not accept this explanation, arguing that investment decisions are complex and require capital, which has an interest cost. The CIT(A) found that the assessee’s own funds were significantly higher than the investments capable of yielding exempt income, thus presuming that the investments were made from interest-free funds. 3. Application of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii): The AO calculated the disallowance as ?10,72,47,695/- by considering the average value of investments and total assets. The CIT(A) corrected the AO’s computation by considering only the investments capable of yielding exempt income and found that the assessee had sufficient own funds. Therefore, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) related to interest. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the dividend income actually earned, following judicial precedents that disallowance should be limited to the income earned. 4. Limitation of Disallowance: The CIT(A) relied on decisions from higher courts, including the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, which held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. This principle was upheld by the Tribunal, which agreed that the disallowance should be restricted to the actual exempt income of ?4,31,280/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, confirming that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be limited to the actual exempt income earned by the assessee. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the investments and that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on August 14, 2020.
|
