2025 (1) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - expenses incurred to the extent relatable to the earned income of taxable income - HELD THAT - As decided in M/s. Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (3) TMI 434 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT since no exempt income has accrued to the assessee therefore, the provisions of Section 14A of the Act do not apply to the fact situation of the case. Those cases where shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', it becomes a business activity of the assessee to the deal in those shares as a business proposition. Whether dividend is earned or not becomes immaterial. In fact, it would be a quirk of fate that when the investee company declared dividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits. The situation here is therefore, different from the case like Maxopp Investment Ltd. where the assessee would continue to hold those shares as it wants to retain control over the investee company. In that case, whenever dividend is declared by the investee company that would necessarily be earned by the assessee and the assessee alone. Therefore, even that the time of investing into those shares, the assessee knows that it may generate dividend income as well and as and when such dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock-in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes upon order to earn profits - Decided against revenue.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment addressed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the Tribunal's order is perverse in allowing relief to the assessee by considering royalty income from licensing of software products as profits of eligible units for deductions under sections 10A/10AA, despite the conditions for such relief not being satisfied and the income not being derived from export activity.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that the assessing authority denied the 10A/10AA claim for royalty income as it was not derived from the export business of the 'Undertaking'.

3. Whether the Tribunal's order was flawed in failing to recognize that intellectual property rights were not owned by the specific units claiming exemption under section 10A/10AA, and thus royalty income could not be considered profit 'derived' from these units.

4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law to hold that no disallowance can be made under Section 14A read with Rule 8(D) of the Act, ignoring CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 and its Explanation to Section 14(A).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1-3:

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 10A/10AA of the Income Tax Act pertain to deductions for profits derived from export activities. The precedent cited includes the case of THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER V/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD., where similar questions were addressed.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court referenced previous judgments, particularly noting that identical questions of law had been addressed in earlier cases, specifically citing the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle vs. Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd.
• Key evidence and findings: The court found that the issues were already covered by prior decisions, which had been decided in favor of the assessee.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principles established in prior cases to the current case, noting that the facts were substantially similar.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue attempted to distinguish the present case from prior decisions but the court found no compelling reason to deviate from established precedent.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the first three substantial questions of law were without merit, as they were covered by prior judgments in favor of the assessee.

Issue 4:

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14A and Rule 8(D) of the Income Tax Act concern disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income. The court referenced the judgment in CARGO MOTORS (P.) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and other relevant cases.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable if no exempt income is earned in the assessment year in question, as supported by the judgment in IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd.
• Key evidence and findings: The court noted that for the assessment year in question, the assessee did not earn any exempt income, making the disallowance under Section 14A inapplicable.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income is only applicable when such income is actually earned.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's reliance on CBDT Circular No.5/2014 was found to be untenable, as the circular did not account for the concept of 'real income'.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the fourth substantial question of law was also without merit, as the disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable in the absence of exempt income.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The words 'in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act for such previous year' in the above Rule 8 D (1) indicates a correlation between the exempt income earned in the AY and the expenditure incurred to earn it."
• Core principles established: The court reaffirmed that deductions under sections 10A/10AA require income to be derived from export activities and that disallowance under Section 14A is only applicable when exempt income is earned.
• Final determinations on each issue: All questions of law were decided against the revenue and in favor of the assessee, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion: The judgment reaffirmed the principles regarding deductions under sections 10A/10AA and the applicability of Section 14A, emphasizing reliance on established precedents and the concept of 'real income'. The appeal was dismissed on all questions of law, favoring the assessee.