9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 770 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s. 14A - no reason has been furnished for non-allocation of common management expenses, therefore, the Assessing Officer has determined the amount of expenditure in accordance in the provision of section 14A(2) r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT - Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, we restrict the disallowance on account of administrative expenditure incurred towards earning exempt income to the extent of ₹ 14 lacs as against of disallowance of ₹ 46,54,415/- determined by the Assessing Officer after applying the finding of the ITAT decision as cited above wherein comparatively such disallowance was restricted to ₹ 7 lacs considering the disallowance amount of ₹ 20,57,946/- computed by the Assessing Officer on similar facts and circumstances in assessment year 2010-11 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction of suo-moto disallowance already made by the assessee. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Allocation of expenses between the eligible and non-eligible units in view of deduction claimed under the provision of section 80IC - on the basis of allocation of rate of 58.69%, the Assessing Officer has computed an amount of ₹ 27,89,536/- being 58.69% of the financial expenses to 80IC unit - HELD THAT - During the course appellate proceedings the ld. counsel has neither disproved the findings of the lower authorities nor brought any material on record in contrary to the finding of the lower authority. Therefore, we do not find merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee and the same is dismissed. Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) - assessee has not deposited the employee s contribution to ESIC in the employee s account in the relevant fund on or before the due date - HELD THAT - We consider that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that when the employer has not credited the sum received by it as employees contribution to employees account in relevant fund on or before the due date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(i)(va) the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction. In view of the above, facts and judicial findings, we uphold the decision of ld. CIT(A). Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee has suo moto made the addition - HELD THAT - The assessee has furnished tax audit report and relevant annexure of account indicating that investment was made in tax free bonds in earlier years and claimed it has not made any new investment during the year - we are of the view that disallowance of administrative expenditure incurred towards earning exempt income to the extent of ₹ 15 lacs is appropriate as against disallowance of ₹ 56,04,892/- determined by the Assessing Officer after applying the findings of Assessing Officer elaborated on similar issue at para 7 of this order. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction of suo-moto disallowance already made by the assessee. Disallowance u/s. 14A in the book profit while computing book profit - HELD THAT - The Special Bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI has held that expenses incurred to earn exempt income not to be added for computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. Therefore, we allow these additional grounds of appeals of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A. 3. Disallowance under Section 80IC. 4. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va). 5. Interest under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C. 6. Additional ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A in computing book profit under Section 115JB. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee filed an affidavit explaining a 105-day delay in filing the appeal due to the misdelivery of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katgirors, which emphasized that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to ensure justice on merit. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A: A.Y. 2013-14: The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed ?41,78,647/- under Section 14A, stating that the assessee did not allocate common management expenses. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal referred to a previous ITAT decision for A.Y. 2010-11, which restricted disallowance to ?7 lacs. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to ?14 lacs for the current year and directed the AO to allow the suo-moto disallowance already made by the assessee. A.Y. 2014-15: The AO disallowed ?43,49,310/- under Section 14A. The CIT(A) upheld this, referring to the decision for A.Y. 2010-11. The Tribunal, following the same precedent, restricted the disallowance to ?15 lacs and directed the AO to allow the suo-moto disallowance already made by the assessee. A.Y. 2015-16: The AO disallowed ?30,13,733/- under Section 14A. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal, applying the same findings as for A.Y. 2013-14, restricted the disallowance to ?12 lacs and directed the AO to allow the suo-moto disallowance already made by the assessee. 3. Disallowance under Section 80IC: A.Y. 2013-14: The AO disallowed ?27,89,536/- under Section 80IC, stating that the assessee did not allocate financial expenses to the eligible unit. The CIT(A) upheld this, noting that the assessee had not pressed a similar ground in A.Y. 2012-13. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal and dismissed it. 4. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va): A.Y. 2013-14: The AO disallowed ?2,43,874/- due to late deposit of employee contributions to ESIC. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, which held that deductions are not allowable if contributions are not deposited on time. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance. A.Y. 2014-15: The AO disallowed ?13,95,100/- for the same reason. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for A.Y. 2013-14 and upheld the disallowance. A.Y. 2015-16: The AO disallowed ?2,92,657/- for the same reason. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for A.Y. 2013-14 and upheld the disallowance. 5. Interest under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C: A.Y. 2014-15: The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding interest under Section 234A as it is mandatory by law. A.Y. 2015-16: The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding interest under Sections 234B and 234C as it is mandatory by law. 6. Additional Ground Regarding Disallowance under Section 14A in Computing Book Profit under Section 115JB: A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15: The assessee raised additional grounds regarding the addition of disallowance under Section 14A in computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT Special Bench Delhi's decision in ACIT vs. Vineet Investment, which held that expenses incurred to earn exempt income should not be added for computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal allowed these additional grounds of appeal. Conclusion: All three appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed.
|
