9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 886 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A under normal provisions of the Act as well as in the computation of book profits u/s.115JB - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could not be made in the absence of any exempt income. We find that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act had been amended by the Finance Act 2022 w.e.f. 01/04/2022 - This explanation has been held to be operative prospectively from A.Y.2022-23 onwards as per the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Act as well as the decision of Era Infrastructure India Ltd. 2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the ground Nos. 1 2 raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. Addition of debenture redemption reserve while computing book profits u/s.115JB - HELD THAT - No infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the ground of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of Debenture Redemption Reserve while computing book profits under Section 115JB. 3. Imposition of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The disallowance was made both under the normal provisions of the Act and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. The AO applied the computation mechanism provided under Rule 8D (2) of the Income Tax Rules, resulting in a disallowance of Rs. 2,35,349/-. However, it was noted that the assessee had not earned any exempt income. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investments (402 ITR 640), which held that disallowance under Section 14A could not be made in the absence of any exempt income. Furthermore, the Finance Act 2022 amended Section 14A with an explanation effective from A.Y. 2022-23 onwards, clarifying that the provisions apply even if the income has not accrued or arisen. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable in this case and allowed the assessee's grounds. 2. Addition of Debenture Redemption Reserve while computing book profits under Section 115JB: The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 10.30 Crores towards Debenture Redemption Reserve (DRR) while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The assessee argued that the DRR represented a provision for an ascertained liability and should be deductible. The CIT(A) observed that the net profit as per the Profit and Loss Account was Rs. 10.32 Crores, and the DRR was not a charge against profit but an appropriation of profit. The CIT(A) referred to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in National Rayon Corporation Ltd. (227 ITR 764), which held that DRR is a provision for a known liability and not a reserve. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the DRR is in the capital field and not deductible in computing book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground on this issue. 3. Imposition of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the imposition of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal noted that the imposition of interest is consequential and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the assessee's ground on this issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly. The grounds related to disallowance under Section 14A were allowed, while the grounds related to the addition of Debenture Redemption Reserve and imposition of interest under Sections 234B and 234C were dismissed. The general grounds raised by the assessee did not require specific adjudication. The order was pronounced on 06/01/2023.
|
