9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 98 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee s submission that no exempt income has been earned - HELD THAT - As in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd 2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT in our considered opinion, there cannot be any disallowance of interest for earning exempt income and there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Disallowance on account of administrative expenses - We find that there is no dispute that all the investments are made in the sister concern in which the assessee has deep business interests and under business expediency, it has invested various amounts in shares of group companies. In our considered opinion, these investments are strategic investments made for furtherance of business of its sister concern. Apart from the investments in Bajaj Corp Ltd and Bajaj Hindustan, all other investments are unquoted investments and any appreciation in the value of shares at the time of sale would be taxable. Assessee has submitted details of each and every item of expenditure and has specifically pointed out that none of the same is incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income. It was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the directors of the company are also employees of the sister concern, who do not draw any remuneration from the company and take care of entire investment work. No error or infirmity has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer who has simply computed the disallowances as per formula given in Rule 8D. In our considered view, such mechanical approach of the Assessing Officer has no legs to stand on. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT-A. Appeal of revenue dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance under Section 14A in accordance with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules amounting to ? 6,85,74,900. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's submission that no exempt income has been earned. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition under Section 14A The Revenue's appeal challenges the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the disallowance of ? 6,85,74,900 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO had observed that the assessee did not disallow any expenditure in relation to exempt income, despite claiming exemption for dividend income and profit in LLP. The AO issued a show cause notice and, after considering the assessee's submissions and financial statements, concluded that the assessee's investments were made from a common pool of funds, including borrowed funds. Consequently, the AO made a disallowance as per Rule 8D. The CIT(A), however, found merit in the assessee's argument that the investments were made out of sufficient own interest-free funds and for business expansion, not for earning exempt income. The CIT(A) also noted that the dividend income from foreign investments was taxable, thus outside the purview of Section 14A. The CIT(A) relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT Vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd., which held that no disallowance under Section 14A should be made if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing that the assessee had sufficient non-interest-bearing funds to cover the investments generating exempt income. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in South Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT, which stated that if investments are made from non-interest-bearing funds, disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible. Issue 2: Acceptance of Assessee's Submission on No Exempt Income The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's submission that no exempt income was earned from the investments in question. The assessee demonstrated that the investments were made in group companies for business expansion, not for earning exempt income. The Tribunal noted that the investments generating exempt dividend income were made in earlier assessment years and that no disallowance was made by the AO in the scrutiny assessment for A.Y. 2013-14. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and evidence showing that the investments were made from own funds and not borrowed funds. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the AO had adopted a mechanical approach by applying the formula in Rule 8D without considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that deleted the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found that the investments were made from sufficient own interest-free funds and for business expansion purposes, and that no exempt income was earned from these investments. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fact-specific approach rather than a mechanical application of Rule 8D.
|
