2022 (9) TMI 376 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - ITAT justification in deleting the addition being 10% of the exempt income - whether assessee has failed to prove that no expenditure has been incurred to earn the exempt income disclosed during the year under consideration? - HELD THAT - Tribunal considering the facts of the case arrived at a finding that the direction given by the CIT (Appeals) to apply Rule 8D is not proper and there being the surplus funds invested by the assessee, no interest and administrative expenses can be disallowed under section 14A. In view of the decisions of this Court in case of Sintex Industries Ltd 2017 (5) TMI 1160 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and India Gelatine Chemicals Ltd 2015 (11) TMI 392 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT there is no illegal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal while deleting the dis-allowance under section 14A - no question of law much less any substantial question of law proposed or otherwise arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2006-07.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act, 1961
The appeal was filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 2006-07. The main issues raised were related to the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer had made an ad-hoc disallowance of 10% on the exempt income of Rs. 65,36,070/- as the assessee failed to prove that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income. The CIT (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for calculation of disallowance.

The Tribunal allowed the cross-objection filed by the assessee and deleted the addition under section 14A. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, where it was held that Rule 8D is prospective and cannot be applied to assessment years prior to 2007. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Sintex Industries Ltd and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd, where it was established that if the assessee had surplus funds against which investments were made, disallowance under section 14A was not justified.

The Tribunal concluded that the direction to apply Rule 8D by the CIT (Appeals) was improper, and since the assessee had surplus funds invested, no interest and administrative expenses could be disallowed under section 14A. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no substantial question of law arising from the impugned order, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, 1961 based on the principles established in relevant legal precedents, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.