2025 (4) TMI 530 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D - disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) r.w.s. 14A should be made on the average value of investments yielding exempt income during the year - HELD THAT - It is the say of the assessee that such investment actually works out to Rs. 66, 11, 88, 530/- whereas the A.O. has worked out the quantum of investment based on market value. We find substantial merit in the submissions of the assessee. On a perusal of the facts on record as well as the order of the co-ordinate bench in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2017-18 2024 (12) TMI 1555 - ITAT MUMBAI it is observed that the average value of investments giving rise to exempt income during the year under consideration works out to Rs. 66, 11, 81, 530/-. Therefore in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) the disallowance @ 1% would work out to Rs. 66, 11, 815/-. That being the case we direct the A.O. to restrict the disallowance. Disallowance of depreciation claimed - assessee through a manually filed revised return of income had claimed depreciation at a higher figure - HELD THAT - As per Explanation 5 to section 32(1) AO has to compute depreciation in terms with the provisions of the Act rules and in consonance with the rate provided in the schedule of depreciation. Irrespective of the claim made by the assessee AO has to compute depreciation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules. Therefore even if the assessee might have computed depreciation incorrectly duty is cast upon the AO to correctly compute the depreciation. Therefore if the assessee claims that the depreciation computed by it in the original return of income is incorrect such claim needs to be factually verified. We restore the issue to the AO with a direction to factually verify assessee s claim of enhanced depreciation and compute depreciation in accordance with the statutory provisions. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

Whether the disallowance of Rs. 68,22,862/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly computed by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Whether the disallowance of the depreciation claim amounting to Rs. 1,27,15,826/- was justified, given the procedural requirements for filing a revised return.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. Rule 8D prescribes the method for determining the amount of expenditure in relation to such income.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO computed the disallowance based on the market value of investments instead of the average value of investments as per the opening and closing balances. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the disallowance should be based on the average value of investments yielding exempt income.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal referred to the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2017-18, where a similar issue was decided, supporting the assessee's contention regarding the computation method.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Rule 8D(2)(ii) and determined that the disallowance should be 1% of the average value of investments, amounting to Rs. 66,11,815/-, rather than the amount computed by the AO.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the AO's rationale but emphasized the need for adherence to the prescribed method under Rule 8D.
Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 66,11,815/-, partially allowing the grounds of appeal.

Disallowance of Depreciation Claim

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 32 of the Income Tax Act pertains to depreciation, and the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT sets a precedent on the procedural requirements for revised claims.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the restriction on accepting revised claims, as per Goetze (India) Ltd., applies only to the AO and not to appellate authorities. It cited the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Prithvi Brokers and Shareholders, which allows appellate authorities to entertain such claims.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the procedural lapse in filing the revised return but highlighted the AO's duty to compute depreciation correctly under Explanation 5 to Section 32(1).
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal determined that the AO must verify the factual correctness of the depreciation claim and compute it according to statutory provisions, regardless of the original claim.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal balanced the procedural requirements with the substantive obligation to compute depreciation accurately.
Conclusions: The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for factual verification and correct computation of depreciation, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "In terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii), the disallowance @ 1% would work out to Rs. 66,11,815/-. That being the case, we direct the A.O. to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 66,11,815/-."
Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that procedural lapses in filing revised returns do not preclude appellate authorities from considering revised claims, especially concerning statutory obligations like depreciation computation.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance under Section 14A, directing a recalculation based on prescribed methods. It also allowed the issue of depreciation disallowance for statistical purposes, mandating a factual verification by the AO.

← Previous Next →