9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 237 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - contention of the Ld. counsel is that since the AO had computed the disallowance in a mechanical manner, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the AO - HELD THAT - Send the issue back to the AO to decide the issue afresh affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant/assessee. Disallowance of the interest paid on working capital limit on CC Account - company had its own sufficient funds - HELD THAT - Send the issue back to the AO to decide the issue afresh affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant/assessee. Addition on proportionate basis on loan given to its sister concern - HELD THAT - This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee's own case 2018 (5) TMI 2093 - ITAT CHANDIGARH we find no reason to take a different view. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench, we allow this ground of appeal and set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D for disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income. 2. Disallowance of interest paid on working capital limit under Section 36(1)(iii). 3. Disallowance of proportionate interest on loans advanced to sister concerns. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The assessee contested the applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim of expenditure related to exempt income. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the group company case, Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ACIT, where it was held that the AO must record dissatisfaction before applying Rule 8D. The Tribunal found that the AO had computed the disallowance mechanically without recording dissatisfaction. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s findings and remanded the issue back to the AO to decide afresh in line with the Tribunal's decision in the Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. case. 2. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii): The assessee argued that the disallowance of ?12,94,605/- for AY 2011-12 and ?3,66,039/- for AY 2012-13, made out of interest paid on working capital limit, was incorrect as the company had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the group company case, Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd., where it was held that no disallowance is called for if the assessee has sufficient own funds. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the fund position and decide the issue in line with the Tribunal's earlier decision. The Tribunal thus set aside the CIT(A)’s findings and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. 3. Disallowance of Proportionate Interest on Loans to Sister Concerns: The assessee challenged the disallowance of ?2,01,282/- made by the AO on a proportionate basis on loans advanced to its sister concern, arguing that it had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, where it was held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds, the presumption is that advances were made out of own funds. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its earlier decision and set aside the CIT(A)’s findings, directing the AO to delete the disallowance. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for both assessment years, remanding the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration in line with its earlier decisions in the group company cases. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to record dissatisfaction before applying Rule 8D and to verify the fund position regarding the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal also reiterated that sufficient own funds negate the need for disallowance of interest on loans to sister concerns.
|
