The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal against the impugned order dated 5th April 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) whereby the respondent’s appeal was partly allowed and the revenue/appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Court observed that the ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance made by the AO.
Brief Facts:
The assessee filed its return for income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 21.11.2011 declaring total income at Rs.358,47,29,328/- under normal provisions and book profit of Rs.431,48,93,079/- under section (u/s) 115JB of the I.T. Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23.03.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act 1961 was issued to the assessee on 01.08.2012. The AO made various additions/disallowances – which included disallowances u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D amount to Rs.5,11,85,000/- The AO completed the assessment vide order dated 03.03.2014.
Being aggrieved by order dated 03.03.2014, the assessee company filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT (A), by his order dated 17.04.2015, partly allowed the assessee company’s appeal. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2015, the Assessee company and the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. The Hon’ble ITAT vide order dated 05.04.2017, allowed the appeal of the Assessee company and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) had clearly mentioned in paragraph no.5 of the assessment order that setting-off interest costs of dividend income against other taxable income is against the matching concept of income and expenditure.
He argued that the ITAT ought not to have deleted the addition of interest disallowed by the AO, in absence of any evidence that indicated that borrowed funds were not used for the purpose of making investments that yielded exemption. He further submitted that the ITAT ought not to have considered interest while calculating disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 5D since the assessee had not maintained a separate account for the investment related to exempt income.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsels for the Respondent argued that the interest expenditure was rightly not disallowed u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D (2)(ii) and prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC).
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that there is no discussion by the AO regarding the computation of inadmissible expenditure made by the assessee forming part of the return of income. Further, the AO did not record any satisfaction that the working of inadmissible expenditure u/s14A is incorrect with regard to the books of account of the assessee. Provision u/s 14(2) does not empower the AO to apply Rule 8D straightaway without considering the correctness of the assessee’s claim in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income. The disallowance made by applying Rule 8D is not only against the statutory mandate but contrary to the legal principles laid down.
Further, the Court took agreed with the decision of the ITAT of deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D. The Court also remarked that CIT (A) rightly deleted the addition made on account of interest expenditure as the assessee had sufficient interest-free surplus funds to make the investment.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the interest expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) under any circumstances.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax – 14 vs Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur Hon’ble Justice Kamal Khata
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1029 OF 2018
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Suresh Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments